Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Releases 90,000 Military E-Mail Accounts

jjp9999 writes "Anonymous Operations posted 90,000 military email addresses and passwords to the Pirate Bay on July 11, in what they're calling 'Military Meltdown Monday.' They obtained the emails while hacking government contracting and consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton. They hinted at other information obtained during the breach, which they describe as 'maps and keys for various other treasure chests buried on the islands of government agencies, federal contractors and shady whitehat companies.' The breach comes just days after Anonymous hacked government contractor IRC Federal. Both breaches are linked to the new AntiSec movement, which LulzSec joined forces with shortly before disbanding."

208 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. Yeh by sortius_nod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think I'll be grabbing that torrent...

    1. Re:Yeh by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      It's against Federal law and state law to knowingly acquire stolen property.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods#United_States

    2. Re:Yeh by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      A. Information falls under copyright law, and possession of such things is not legally considered theft. That distinction is absolutely relevant here.
      B. Actually, it's not so relevant, because the government can't own copyrights - anything they own belongs to the people.

      In no way, shape, or form would downloading this amount to possession of stolen goods. As a matter of fact, it's not even a crime. Hacking the computers to obtain the info was a crime. After that the cats out of the bag.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Yeh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quite simply, the fact that this is happening indicates that the impacted are not capable of defending our freedoms or anything else according to modern realities of engagement. We may wish it were otherwise, but it is not. I'm sorry.

    4. Re:Yeh by erroneus · · Score: 1

      No, what it means is that the government's reliance on [expensive] contractors is not just a bad financial decision but a horrible security risk. These companies can act "on behalf" of government and not be held to account in the way government activities usually are. Why did we need Blackwater at all when we have plenty of soldiers? The answer should be obvious.

    5. Re:Yeh by erroneus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure there is some sort of law against knowingly acquiring sensitive information. Worse still, to get it on a torrent means you have to share it too so you are also sharing sensitive information.

    6. Re:Yeh by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Copying is not theft.

    7. Re:Yeh by SpecialFred · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, there isn't. The US does not have an Official Secrets Act. Unless there are special circumstances (like agreeing to submit to contract or military law), it is not a crime to share or acquire secret information. See the Pentagon Papers case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Legal_case

    8. Re:Yeh by Anonymus · · Score: 1

      First of all, this data would need to have a value over $5000 for that to come in to effect. Regardless, I'm curious about whether or not "possession of stolen goods" has ever been tested in court with intangible data such as this.

    9. Re:Yeh by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      No, there isn't. The US does not have an Official Secrets Act. Unless there are special circumstances (like agreeing to submit to contract or military law), it is not a crime to share or acquire secret information. See the Pentagon Papers case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Legal_case

      So what are they persecuting Bradley Manning for then? Failure to have a properly ironed uniform?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:Yeh by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Copying is not theft.

      Maybe not, but it can be treason punishable by death, as the Rosenbergs would be able to tell you if they were still alive.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:Yeh by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      He signed a contract. He violated the terms of that contract.

      They aren't "persecuting" him, they are prosecuting him.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    12. Re:Yeh by SpecialFred · · Score: 1

      The charges against him are listed here: http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/eCache/DEF/12/444.html (first two PDFs). You'll notice that they are all violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is applicable only to members of the military, not people generally. Manning's situation is entirely inapposite.

    13. Re:Yeh by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      We need Blackwater so the superich can siphon out more money from the military industrial complex.

      Uh, duh.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    14. Re:Yeh by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Nope, there isn't.
      US Supreme court long-standing decision states that leaking classified information is illegal (regardless of how it was accessed) but once leaked obtaining and even publishing it is a protected by the first amendment of your constitution.
      This is why newspapers can print classified stuff that wikileaks obtained. The government can't even directly act against wikileaks (much as they want to)- only against those who do the leaking because obtaining and/or publishing classified or other sensitive information is not illegal.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re:Yeh by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Leaking it is a crime - especially if you are a military member sworn to protect it - but obtaining it is not.
      That's why Manning is prosecuted but Wikileaks is not a banned organisation, it's also why they are not prosecuting the editors of all those newspapers who published the data for wikileaks.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    16. Re:Yeh by eqisow · · Score: 1

      Not so much prosecuting as holding indefinitely, it seems... or is a trial finally getting underway?

    17. Re:Yeh by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      Under the UCMJ, he is granted a "speedy trial". They have 120 days from arrest to arraignment.

      I have heard the defense is delaying the trial to have Manning evaluated for psych problems.

      If the prosecution was delaying the trial, at 120-days the defense would have filed a motion to dismiss and it would, in all likelihood, have been granted.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    18. Re:Yeh by DaleSwanson · · Score: 1

      So what are they persecuting Bradley Manning for then?

      Unless there are special circumstances (like agreeing to submit to contract or military law), it is not a crime to share or acquire secret information.

      See bolded section of quote. Bradley Manning was in the military, which means he agreed to comply with the UCMJ, which makes it illegal to disclose classified information. There is no such restriction on US citizens by default; they have to agree to it.

    19. Re:Yeh by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Treason only lies in waging war against the U.S. or in aiding it's enemies. Copying per se can not be either of these things. Ditribution may be, but not the copying. But everyone knows there's not such thing a treason really. http://www.lysanderspooner.org/node/44

  2. A Military Contractor Named Booz? by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    That name itself just screams trustworthiness, doesn't it? I know I would happily hand over my secrets to someone named Booz to keep confidential and secured.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:A Military Contractor Named Booz? by siddesu · · Score: 1

      But you would order your subordinates to do so if you're bossing a military outfit and your former boss is now bossing Booz and you both helped this contract to come about. Which is how these contracts happen anyway.

    2. Re:A Military Contractor Named Booz? by zill · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not as ironic as Standard & Poor's.

    3. Re:A Military Contractor Named Booz? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Forget their name, just take a look their company uniforms, they look more like inmates -- not security guards.

    4. Re:A Military Contractor Named Booz? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Christ, who modded such an openly racist comment up? Yeah, foreign names sometimes sound funny to English speakers. Wait, what about that Baumgartner guy in the US?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:A Military Contractor Named Booz? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I do not understand how you read that and interpret it to be racist. It was certainly not intended as such. Someone else understood it to be a joke, but somehow you decided it was racist? I would be interested in knowing how you reached that conclusion.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  3. Not sure when this is going to end.. by darkc0der · · Score: 2

    Not sure when this is going to end. Maybe Operating Systems needs to be redesigned with built in security.

    1. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not sure when this is going to end.

      You don't? I'll be glad to tell you.

      Maybe Operating Systems needs to be redesigned with built in security.

      Wait, it sounds to me like you do know. Just remember that "security" in this case doesn't mean "security from outside attackers" it means "security from users."

      This is going to end with iOS. Programmers will be required to license their compiler and IDE from official government sources and only be allowed to enter code into "secure" disconnected computers. You will only be allowed to run programs that have been signed off by the Government, and you will have to provide your Government Internet License on demand.

      Think I'm just paranoid? Remember, this is only the end state. We've got quite a few steps to make it there. But with things like iOS, and Sony being allowed to remove OtherOS without penalty, we can already see we're walking down that path.

      And when you read stories like "Ex-NSA Chief Supports Separate Secure Internet," you know where we're headed:

      Expect more and more invasive laws and less and less anonymity. You will be required to give up your liberty in exchange for security, friend consumer.

    2. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Think I'm just paranoid?

      Yes, yes I do.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by biodata · · Score: 1

      Who is going to require that programmers license anything? The United Nations?

      --
      Korma: Good
    4. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by biodata · · Score: 1

      Security PEBKAC.

      --
      Korma: Good
    5. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by samkass · · Score: 1

      Not sure when this is going to end. Maybe Operating Systems needs to be redesigned with built in security.

      Yes, because that's made iOS very popular around here.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    6. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by Ulua53 · · Score: 1

      Nah, that's what Windows Live OneCare is for...

    7. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      You can always prove that a program will go on forever in finite time. What you can't aways prove is that it will halt.

      Anyway, the above was quite OT... For securing the governemnt's systems against their users the governemnt can issue some "Right to Read" laws applying just to their computers. It should even have already done that. No overall society control is needed.

    8. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Not sure when this is going to end.

      Why does it need to end? I mean, using driving a car exposes one to risks - I still see people driving.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    9. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They are. The problem isn't in the lower layers of the OSI model, it's on layer 8.

      Or, in other terms, it's pretty hard to make a computer system useful and resilient against human stupidity.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But in this very special case: Why not?

      These machines are used in an environment where the owner (the government) actually is interested in keeping the system secure from its users. This is not my home machine where I am user and owner in one person. User and owner (of system and data) are two separate entities and it would make sense to design and use a system where the user only has limited access and cannot break out of his jail.

      You said we'd end up with a system where only government mandated and "signed" software may run and where people need a government issued pass to use those systems. In this very special case, this would actually be quite sensible.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      You cannot have an algorithm that solves the general halting problem but you can have algorithms that solve the halting problem for a specific set of algorithms and you can use human ingenuity to come up with a proof for previously undecided algorithms. There's no guarantee that you'll come up with a proof in finite time but it's likely enough for algorithms that you're going to use on real problems.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    12. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Humans?

      You can compromise any system if you can compromise a privileged user.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    13. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by memyselfandeye · · Score: 1

      I'll bet my bottom dollar this has nothing to do with OS security. It's more likely yet another injection attack that could have been prevented by simply prepending statements and sanitizing user input... like it says on practically every paper ever written about securing your database. At least the passwords were hashed. I wonder if a salt was used? I doubt it.

    14. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by memyselfandeye · · Score: 1

      Or I could be wrong. the README seems to allude that a public facing server had SSH/remote deskop enabled and accepted clear text passwords without any kind of certificate verification, and did not use a 'Fail2Ban' like application. Doesn't say if it was Windows or Linux or OS/2, but it appears that whatever it was it was installed and left to sit as is. How long would a bot be able to brute force a computer accepting remote logins? I don't know, but I'd bet a couple of weeks at most.

      This is line 2 on securing your Database servers. It really is getting ridiculous. It's like a flood of teenage angst running around a neighborhood pissing on the carpets of unlocked houses, and nobody has figured out that it's because their doors are unlocked. Really, what's the point of pretending half the 'experts' know what the hell they are doing?

      I wish iwe didn't have to worry about security. But we do. Not just because of a bunch of people mad at the world want to piss on your carpet, but because of a bunch of people mad at the world who want to shoot you in the head. A pox on all their houses.

    15. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by oztiks · · Score: 1

      Stupid idea, the iOS concept though offers the germ free environment and safe computing your stuck in a position whereby 1 only 1 germ is needed to destroy the whole deck of cards. "Hacking" becomes more about who gets paid to accidentally leave the door open, extorted,family threatened, whatever and BAM! The whole ship sinks.

      Computing needs regulation, enforce a regulatory system like what doctors / lawyers have and the things like being hacked because you didn't equip the network with a firewall gets treated as negligent practice. I say chuck the wannabe geek in gaol along side the script kiddie that got in! Our infrastructure is run by far too many lazy ass marsh mellows, and for any of these people who are in IT positions who see these articles and get angry, you're angry cause you're scared it will happen to you ... So you should be, next budget cycle order a pen test FFS!

    16. Re:Not sure when this is going to end.. by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      This will NOT lead to more security. It will lead to the same sloppy lack of security with ever harsher laws against using a computer in any way except for the approved way sanctioned by some committee and it's agents.

      Get drunk and leave a thumbdrive full of unencrypted state secrets on a bar counter? no problem.
      Pick up and read that thumbdrive? Prison.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  4. Re:holy crap!! by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

    still quite strong. yet more proof that MAFIAA can't win!

  5. I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anonymous has an agenda. That's fine. Originally they were after Scientology. If they've shifted focus, I have no problem with that. If they're trying to become another Wikileaks and expose government wrongdoing, that also makes sense.

    What I don't understand is the wholesale posting of email addresses and passwords. What are they trying to accomplish? Military or not, these are email addresses of real people. This is no longer a crusade against "bad guys" whoever they may be, or even against bad activities. This is now a crusade against privacy. You know, the concept that keeps Anonymous, well, anonymous.

    If we use exactly the same standard that they use to judge what should be public information, then the names, email addresses, and passwords of everyone who calls himself/herself Anonymous should be public as well.

    1. Re:I don't get it. by Necroman · · Score: 1

      "Doing it for the Lulz."

      I'd imagine it's the same reason many others publicize their work, for the notoriety and as a symbol of proof that they did it.

      --
      Its not what it is, its something else.
    2. Re:I don't get it. by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      If we use exactly the same standard that they use to judge what should be public information, then the names, email addresses, and passwords of everyone who calls himself/herself Anonymous should be public as well.

      Keep in mind that if Anonymous hackers happened to be in the military, they would have to expose their own passwords in this dump in order to avoid suspicion. So it's quite possible one or more of the hackers gave out their own info.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:I don't get it. by Chucky_M · · Score: 1

      If we use exactly the same standard that they use to judge what should be public information, then the names, email addresses, and passwords of everyone who calls himself/herself Anonymous should be public as well.

      Ah you opened the door to the obligatory link :) http://xkcd.com/834/

    4. Re:I don't get it. by bstender · · Score: 1

      exactly. could be the damn govt itself.

      --
      look sig is kool
    5. Re:I don't get it. by dcollins · · Score: 4, Funny

      Surely there's some free-market economic explanation for all this. That shit can explain anything (or so I'm told).

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    6. Re:I don't get it. by fortfive · · Score: 1

      Well, one possible goal is to motivate "the people." Things in the U.S. rarely change until the middle class feels the impact.

    7. Re:I don't get it. by afabbro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anonymous has an agenda. That's fine.

      It's the same agenda a 3-year-old has: "look at me! look at me!"

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    8. Re:I don't get it. by Renraku · · Score: 1

      I think their tactics are to create enough chaos and hope someone will pull something interesting from those accounts. Something like, "Hello Mr. CEO, this is Corporal Blabla, give me $100,000 and I'll tell my commanding officer that we need new battle rifles with your patented sling-a-bullet technology." or "Yeah I know we raped and killed that woman but we can just rape and kill her family if she reports it. Who can stop us? We're the military!"

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    9. Re:I don't get it. by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1
      Panther Moderns, Cat Mother.

      "Chaos, Mr. Who," Lupus Yonderboy said. "That is our mode and modus. That is our central kick. Your woman knows."

    10. Re:I don't get it. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, Anonymous has an agenda. At least some Anonymous certainly does. Statistically, it's quite likely, at least. :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:I don't get it. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sure it can. Rampart "free market" economy (I use the term loosely here, the free market economy after all also depends highly on the buyer's power to choose which isn't the case in reality) means that security is a cost position without a shareholder benefit and hence is to be cut first.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:I don't get it. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What middle class?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:I don't get it. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, the blame will be shifted to some poor, underfunded CSO who even could not prevent this if he wanted to (and trust me, most CSOs I know are paranoid enough that they would if they could) because his budget is lower than that of the cafeteria since security is seen as a cost position without revenue. He'll get fired for "incompetence", replaced by the next poor sod who's put on that ejector seat 'til the next security breach.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:I don't get it. by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they're trying to embarrass people who use plain-text passwords. They certainly deserve it.

    15. Re:I don't get it. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Anonymous has an agenda.

      Not really. This clearly wasn't a DDOS by random /b/tards, but rather the work of a few individuals who decided to call themselves anons.

      The only motivation is lulz, and thanks to the media reporting these hacks they have reached epic proportions. If a random hacker did this it probably wouldn't make the news, but because "Anonymous did it" (meaningless as that statement is) it will probably get on the front page of the BBC and CNN web sites, and maybe a mention on the TV news too.

      Not sure what the solution is. It is the same with many high profile crimes, e.g. when a student decides to start shooting people at school it inspires others to do the same.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:I don't get it. by justsayin · · Score: 1

      Builds their street cred. Proves they can hack into your shit. That way, when they email the president of Bank of America and say they want 50 million by morning or they are gonna release the data they just hacked off your network,...

    17. Re:I don't get it. by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      Anonymous has an agenda.

      But that Coward is posting here all the time . . . oh, wait, I see you're speaking from authority.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    18. Re:I don't get it. by SoTerrified · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is the wholesale posting of email addresses and passwords. What are they trying to accomplish?

      I can answer that. The problem is the quantity of information. You crack a huge amount of email, but it takes some real 'boots on the ground' to go through it all and figure out what's signal and what's noise. And even if you do go through it all, you might not have the background knowledge to make sense of it.

      So the idea then becomes to post the email and passwords and crowdsource it. Let everyone hold things up to the light and see what they can find. 90,000 emails is a lot for one person to go through, but trivial for 90,000 people to go through.

    19. Re:I don't get it. by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      It seems counter intuitive at first but it makes sense. If you want the people in power to take your privacy seriously, you have to make them feel as insecure in their privacy as the rest of us are. By exposing them, it puts them in the same boat as us, and thus maybe they'll start to take security and privacy seriously.

    20. Re:I don't get it. by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      That's fine.

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Not sure I see the point of this. by cvtan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How does releasing email addresses and passwords aid the fight for good and thwart evildoers? They should go back to the Scientology thing.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many are using good passwords.
      I am betting not many.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    2. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Didn't you hear? The US is and in turn US army is full of evil. I mean just skip Iran murdering gay's, or the years of things going on in Sudan with religious persecution. Or the pakistan military being so corrupt that they've been infiltrated by terrorists. It's the US that's evil.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Thruen · · Score: 1

      I wondered the same thing, and the only thing I came up with is that if the emails belong to high-level officials, we can go through their things on our own and dig up dirt while Anon looks for more holes. Yeah, I know, that's pretty thin. I think it's more plausible that it hasn't been as easy to dig up dirt as it used to be and they're releasing things like this so we don't forget about them.

    4. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by andb52 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The obvious logical fallacy with your statement is that, just because other regimes may be evil and corrupt, it does not mean that the US is not.

    5. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They did this with an incredibly simple attack that any script kiddie could do. They even boast this in the torrent. China/Iran would otherwise silently sit on this data and it is likely they already are.

    6. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      How does releasing email addresses and passwords aid the fight for good and thwart evildoers?

      Maybe next time, they won't hire contractors relying on porous security, able to be penetrated by any script kiddy with a modem, increasing the security of the US Defense Force in the process. But more likely, they'll just send goons after script kiddies - goon security is easier than real security.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      It helps to destroy the false sense of security that tons of dollars spent on hardening systems seem to give to everybody. It also keeps govt/mil on their toes and who can be against some additional scrutiny on public entities? Remember: your money. It goes to show that 'whitehat' security companies are mostly clueless and are not delivering on their promise of security. It shows that they have some ethical problems in dealing with the information they are given (or not) access to to their own advantage. How many whitehat security companies were exposed in the past few months? Lots of high profile ones.

      --
      none
    8. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      It goes to show that 'whitehat' security companies are mostly clueless and are not delivering on their promise of security.

      Or it shows that lumbering bureaucracies have fundamental disadvantages that can not be overcome by bolting on additional layers of bureaucracy (read: compliance).

    9. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      The obvious logical fallacy with your statement is that, just because other regimes may be evil and corrupt, it does not mean that the US is not.

      Especially since two of the three cases he cited the US was complicit by providing the country military aid (Sudan was the 6th largest recipient of US military aid and everybody knows about the billions given to Pakistan).

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    10. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by andb52 · · Score: 1

      Well said, sir!

    11. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US has had, and will have, bad presidents who muck around in shit they shouldn't be. That doesn't make the US an evil regime; it makes the people idiots for electing people willing to get us into sticky situations.

    12. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How does releasing email addresses and passwords aid the fight for good and thwart evildoers?

      If LulzSec/Anonymous can do it, so can our enemies and allies.

      The fact that these guys are so prolific and haven't been caught yet, strongly implies that others have done the same thing.
      And probably gotten away with it because they didn't announce it to the world.

      The fact is, this will go on for as long as LulzSec/Anonymous feels like doing it.
      Between government agencies and contractors, there's just too much low hanging fruit.

      BUT, all things being equal, I'd rather it was blackhats humiliating us in public instead of China silently doing it for economic gain or espionage.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    13. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      --
      none
    14. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by gorgano · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand the point in this either. If there was something they wanted to bring to the public's attention, then I would have expected them to put in the work of hacking said e-mail accounts and getting the information everyone supposedly needs to know.

      As it is, they grabbed “a list of roughly 90,000 military e-mails and password hashes[...]”. Which tells me some script kiddy got himself a shadow file and put it on the internet.

      FTA: "Anonymous believes that their efforts are simply a form of civil disobedience, calling their tactics “peaceful protest.""
      I'm also not sure how they can continue to call this "peaceful protest" (assuming Anonymous actually said that and the author isn't just pulling that from an earlier statement). I can see the DDOS attacks construed as peaceful protest. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can see the through process. Let's be clear though, they are no longer performing a peaceful protest. They are infiltrated a secured system and stealing confidential data, which is a crime.

      Anonymous just seems to be a group of people with no particular focus or agenda that I can see, other than rebelling against everything and in turn giving every other hacker a bad name.

    15. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by artor3 · · Score: 1

      That only works if you give such an overly broad definition to "evil" that basically any organization will fall under it. Evil is a very strong word, and it's absurd the way it's thrown around by obnoxious man-children looking to feel oppressed.

    16. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by artor3 · · Score: 1

      So we should just start driving down the streets murdering people, just to prove how easy it is and show that gun laws should change? There are better ways to effect change. Steal the passwords, burn them to some DVDs, mail them to some congressmen, and maybe a newspaper. Don't publicly distribute them.

    17. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by andb52 · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you that "evil" is overused, I do think that certain US policies such as "targeted killings" that kill multitudes of civilians and target United States citizens, the propping up of Saleh in Yemen, and the torture both carried out at our military prisons and contracted out to third party countries such as Syria constitute "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked." It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose I am just more damning than you.

    18. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BUT, all things being equal, I'd rather it was blackhats humiliating us in public instead of China silently doing it for economic gain or espionage.

      False choice, we can have both!

    19. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by artor3 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you're more damning, just more generalizing. Torture is absolutely evil. But that doesn't make the entire nation -- or even the entire military -- evil, the way some people around here seem to believe.

    20. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That might be a bit optimistic. Working in the software industry, we'e seen that tactic tried before with Microsoft and other large corporations. The one thing that they had in common is that they didn't really care about security but they did care about public relations.

      Mailing the passwords to a congressman anonymously assumes the congressman gives enough of a damn to do something. They might even have the best of intentions, but without urgency it'll just get swept under the rug in favor of more immediate problems.

    21. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by andb52 · · Score: 1

      A fair point. The government is hardly a monolith. Although I think there are larger problems than Rumsfeld's infamous "few bad apples," you are absolutely correct that it is not worth condemning the entire institution.

    22. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by dcollins · · Score: 1

      At this point, I'm willing to say there's something really structurally broken with our system. Guess we'll see another case study for that come Aug-2.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    23. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by artor3 · · Score: 1

      That's why you send it to newspapers too. They love a scandal.

    24. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by sheepofblue · · Score: 1

      Are you sure they are not our enemies? Why would it not be in the interest of North Korea or China to either fund or encourage these groups?

    25. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Considering the weapon power of the US, most countries would be classified as "mostly harmless". So I guess you're right.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Because they'd want that information for themselves instead of having it released to the public? Because they'd want the US to feel safe and secure so they have it easier if they want to hack and cripple the infrastructure?

      C'mon, what's their gain? Humiliation? Please, gimme a break. The US are quite capable of internationally letting their pants down without foreign aid, they're quite self sufficient in that area.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    27. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by xophos · · Score: 1

      But most people in germany (i know from personal experience) ARE idiots. Why should it have been otherwise when Hitler was elected?

    28. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Evil and idiocy can be very difficult to distinguish from each other and can have identical results. I'm not convinced that stupidity is a valid moral excuse for any given action.

    29. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by gemtech · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was a big fan of them when they picked on $cientology. All this other crap is really getting on my nerves.

      --
      Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
    30. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by horza · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking. I would go so far as to say if Anon can do it so easily, then countries well known for their espionage probably already have. The correspondence of those on the list should be assumed as compromised from the point the current email system was made live, obviously, but the email addresses could be used to hunt for potentially blackmail material (eg if they were silly enough to use their work email to register for gay porn, use a medical web site to look up HIV symptoms, etc).

      I find it difficult to think of publishing the information as wrong, as anything valuable that could have been gleaned will have been flogged to death a long time ago. Is it an inconvenience? They need to get all 90,000 users to reset their passwords, but I'd expect they should have to do that on a regular basis anyway. Could somebody download the torrent and cause mischief? In the rather unlikely event the passwords weren't reset and somebody managed to use one of the email accounts, I can't see what more mischief they would do than Anon themselves when they had possession.

      I can't see anything here other than the long-standing tradition of hackers exposing flaws to give impetus to fix lazy and slack computer security. The net result of this action will be US military email will become harder to access for foreign and domestic enemies. Probably not a bad overall result.

      Phillip.

    31. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Kidbro · · Score: 1

      At the risk of bringing up Godwin's law, I will point out that Hitler was elected into office.

      No, not really.

    32. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the congress critters won't do much about it, it won't be made public, it won't be transparent that it happened. Send them to Newspapers? They're bought and paid for by the military industrial complex which also drives American politics. No, public humiliation is the only route to get the government contractors to tighten up their security, and the only way to actually get the media to report on it is to make it as bold as possible. I can fully understand why they're exposing the weaknesses the way they are. They're working from a position of weakness, not power.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    33. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Borland · · Score: 1

      The obvious logical fallacy with your statement is that, just because other regimes may be evil and corrupt, it does not mean that the US is not.

      Of course. But it also kinda points at peculiar Anon cowardice -- going after the society open enough not to execute anyone even suspected of being anti-establishment. Seriously, when Anon dumps out some big dirt on the Chinese or Russians, mocking them with their usual flair, in a sustained campaign I'll be impressed: Assuming they survive.

      True, we act like dicks with Gitmo, but I don't think any anons have been sent there lately. The fact that we are lower on the douche scale doesn't excuse us, but it does raise some questions about the courage of the attackers.

    34. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by noodler · · Score: 1

      "That doesn't make the US an evil regime; it makes the people idiots for electing people willing to get us into sticky situations."

      These two things are not nessesarily opposites.
      In fact, i've seen hem go hand in hand quite a few times.

    35. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by noodler · · Score: 1

      China, Iran, and the whole bloody criminal community...

    36. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      If that's the angle you're going with, then you're going to have to assume assume that for the last 150 or so years, we have had nothing but "bad presidents who muck around in shit they shouldn't be." This isn't about some elected official's agenda. It's longstanding government policy. It's how we do things.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    37. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      What an idiotic comparison.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    38. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      It is a peaceful protest. They're not shooting anyone, after all.

      The deceit is in the idea that a "peaceful protest" is legal, or that a "peaceful protest" is harmless. There are all sorts of peaceful protests which are neither. Gathering in a rally of 10000 people in pointy hats where you pledge not to hire someone of a different race is a peaceful protest as long as no guns or burning crosses come out.

    39. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      He was appointed by Paul von Hindenberg, who was the president of the Weimar Republic and had the authority to appoint the chancellor - Hitler's official title. He was not directly voted into office.

    40. Re:Not sure I see the point of this. by dthx1138 · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. Ends justifying the means.... bravo.

      Tell you what; tomorrow, we are going to start raiding the DMV and stealing people's driving test records. Maybe that will teach them to build a DMV without armed guards posted outside 24/7 and orders to shoot on sight.

      --
      I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
  8. Re:So... by Gohtar · · Score: 1

    You can still collect IP addresses with an HTTP download.

  9. Conspiracies... by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    I just can't help but think what has changed recently which might explain the flood of all these high profile attacks.

    A critical mass of stupidity? (OWASP greatest fails)

    TLA false flagging for 1984 legislation?

    Two hacking groups (lulz and anon) with nothing better to do?

    Whatever the reason I hope people are taking this opportunity to wake up.

    1. Re:Conspiracies... by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when a government oppresses its people for too long -- anarchy. Obama wants people to believe he can control the Internet, but he can't. "The more you tighten your grasp, Tarkan, the more the galaxies slip through your fingers."

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    2. Re:Conspiracies... by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is what happens when a government oppresses its people for too long -- anarchy. Obama wants people to believe he can control the Internet, but he can't. "The more you tighten your grasp, Tarkan, the more the galaxies slip through your fingers."

      Er... what oppression are you referring to? Or is this another case of someone who has little idea what real oppression is like trying to say that he US is sooooo evil and oppressive because... oh.. I don't know.. something or other.. Not saying it is perfect and hasn't gotten less free over time.. just saying that if you think living in the US is living under oppression then you don't know what oppression really is.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    3. Re:Conspiracies... by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      So the fact that other countries are more oppressive is an excuse for governments to take away liberties? Fine, I'm not rotting in jail or anything like that, but I find myself unable to make even the most basic living under these wartime conditions. Jail is not much worse than my current situation.

      No, and I don't believe I said anything close to that. What I did say is that the current conditions in this country, even factoring in your unfortunate ones, are not even close to real oppression and that there very much is a difference. You mentioned rotting in jail. If you go out on the street and declare that Obama is a dick, will you go to jail? Are you posting freely and openly on the Internet with little to no fear of a knock in the night? If you were homosexual and told the world, are you likely to be stoned to death by the state? Do you live in constant fear that what you think, say or do will get you shot or make you disappear in the night? That's real oppression. You're inability to make "even the most basic living", though unfortunate, is not in any way "oppression".

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    4. Re:Conspiracies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      'what oppression are you referring to? Or is this another case of someone who has little idea what real oppression is like trying to say that he US is sooooo evil and oppressive because... oh.. I don't know'

      1. The USA drops bombs on foreign civilians.
      2. The USA exports its inflation.
      3. The USA routinely uses torture.
      4. The USA has the largest number of prisoners in the world.
      5. The USA routinely slaughters its own people in "no-knock" raids.

      etc. etc. etc.

  10. Err, Anonymous? by bbbaldie · · Score: 1

    The recording industry really, really7 sux. Evil city Their RIAA, too. Please, go after them. These guys are on our side.

    1. Re:Err, Anonymous? by bbbaldie · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the incoherence. You guys should make us proofread first ;-) The recording industry really, really sux. Evil city. Their beloved RIAA, too. Please go after them. These guys are on our side.

    2. Re:Err, Anonymous? by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      That was no more coherent the second time around.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  11. Re:holy crap!! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    No, but the Feds can.

    Leaking information on current and former US military personnel is just going to fan the flames of "shut everything down" in Congress.

    People keep poking at the bear and eventually it's going to wake up and rip things apart.

    Yes, I know its from a military contractor, that distinction will be lost on Congress.

  12. They sure have some bawlz. by Qbertino · · Score: 2

    You got to hand it to them: These blackhat/lulz Hacker types sure do have some balls. I'd be scared shitless to pull such a stunt, even if I *did* have the information. I'd be super-ultra-extreme paranoid and cover my tracks many times over. I actually wouldn't know where to start when attemting that.

    Probably something like this:
    1. Multiple levels of undetected low-profile unix breakins to start off a botnet.
    2. Multiple levels of botnets on top of that to finally hack the systems involved in the attack and breach, using totally different malware strategies as to go undetected among the usual hodge-podge of criminal botnets.
    3. Low-profile IDS on all levels to scout for detection or suspicious tracing activity 24/7.
    4. Encrypted, low-profile bit-by-bit intrusion and trickle-data-grab over weeks or months.
    5. Complete rollback and teardown of the entire network with IDS remaining on the last lines of defense (see 1.) ready to send out signals if someone comes for you.
    6. Wait. A long time.
    7. Release data and press release over simularly complex channels.

    Imagine what happens to you if the CIA or some other 3-letter blackops finds out where you're at. Your life is pretty much over then.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by Shark · · Score: 2

      This type of knowledge has been deemed dangerous. Please report to your local intelligence agency for evaluation and risk assessment.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    2. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by Normal+Dan · · Score: 1

      Nah, you don't need anything this complex. You can hack in from your home network with nothing special and even leave your email address and contact information. As long as you don't brag about what you did, they have no way of tracking you. Trust me on this. There's nothing to be worried about... nothing to worry about.... worry about... worry...

      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    3. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the majority of Qaeda members who've been making a mockery of the CIA for decades.

      More likely is that if any of these crackers are even caught, the CIA will make a deal to coopt them instead of destroy them. The CIA likes nothing better than skilled makers of mayhem - except perhaps mayhem itself.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by Jerry · · Score: 1

      Your plan would fail at this point:
      "1. Multiple levels of undetected low-profile unix breakins to start off a botnet."

      Two years ago it took some bad guys 6 months to hack into only 700 Linux boxes because they had to do it manually. Just sending an email with an infected packet won't work on Linux the way it worked to create the most recently discovered Windows botfarm, which contained over 4,500,000 Windows zombies.

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    5. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      Or you could just sit in a free wifi area or use your neighbors wifi (down the block), boot backtrack and fire up nmap/metasploit.

    6. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by Ulua53 · · Score: 1

      Last I saw they are hiding behind tor and hacked routers.

    7. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      you're more or less right-- the OP is just gonna get busted tinkering with IDS on his botnet or whatever crazy crap and never get to his actual target.

      Just go to a coffee shop you've never been to on the other side of town and pop a wifi AP in the area. Just be mindful to not do stupid shit like log into your facebook account and treat it sorta like an OTP-- dough-nut re-use.

      This last part is crucial, go check max butler's 2nd case, they figured out what APs were available, and then cross-referenced them with login's on boxes he controlled.

      It's easiest to just make a separation in your life, and when it's show time, do your one task and do it well, and then return to the other part of your life.
      The trick is to never give them a reason to look at you as a person in the first place.

      Past that, it's making sure you don't get caught with physical evidence. I like to find cheap old laptops I can buy in person used from places like goodwill and pc repair stores/etc and one-time use them as well then wipe and donate back to a thrift store. Once you're through that, you should be more or less bullet proof.

    8. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Haven't they made some arrests in a few European countries, and the targets are, like, 17-year-old kids? Outright naivete and foolhardiness will short-circuit a lot of your track-covering-requirements right quick.

      Like for all the same reasons you can only really fight wars with a bunch of mostly un-laid young men. Or as "the war nerd" wrote this spring: in a real combat, it's your bravest friend who would be at the front and the first to die.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    9. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by afabbro · · Score: 1

      You got to hand it to them: These blackhat/lulz Hacker types sure do have some balls.

      They're 14-year-olds. They barely have pubic hair and I'm not sure that all of them have a full set yet.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    10. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest adding that you use a machine that you use only for this and never for anything that could remotely be tied to you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      IIRC that was over the LOIC thing. I somehow doubt the LulzSec guys were stupid enough to even touch that with a mile long pole.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If they're 14year olds, I want their resume as soon as they get a chance. If they can achieve this level of skill at just 14 years of age, I certainly want them on my team.

      I'm hiring. And paying well. Just get out 'fore you have a police record, that would be a showstopper.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That hasn't worked for ages by now. The CIA soon learned that hiring the people who'd hack you for fun isn't really a good idea. They tend to be less ... loyal.

      Let's be sensible here. You have someone who hacked you, a rather intimidating looking three letter agency, for kicks. Why did they do that? Certainly not because they like you so much.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by blackair · · Score: 1

      You got to hand it to them: These blackhat/lulz Hacker types sure do have some balls. I'd be scared shitless to pull such a stunt, even if I *did* have the information. I'd be super-ultra-extreme paranoid and cover my tracks many times over. I actually wouldn't know where to start when attemting that.

      Probably something like this: 1. Multiple levels of undetected low-profile unix breakins to start off a botnet. 2. Multiple levels of botnets on top of that to finally hack the systems involved in the attack and breach, using totally different malware strategies as to go undetected among the usual hodge-podge of criminal botnets. 3. Low-profile IDS on all levels to scout for detection or suspicious tracing activity 24/7. 4. Encrypted, low-profile bit-by-bit intrusion and trickle-data-grab over weeks or months. 5. Complete rollback and teardown of the entire network with IDS remaining on the last lines of defense (see 1.) ready to send out signals if someone comes for you. 6. Wait. A long time. 7. Release data and press release over simularly complex channels.

      Imagine what happens to you if the CIA or some other 3-letter blackops finds out where you're at. Your life is pretty much over then.

      I agree, NSA, CIA, DOD can royal bend you over with no lube and mess a person life up ( can you say rendition). Their was no strategic thinking involved. If they were really just trying to point out the holes in the system there a whole list of people that could have sent that info with. instead they put it on a torrent site. so not only do they get credit for a great hack but also with pretty much putting in the hands on unscruplous people, oh and since that list is connected to Marines, soldiers, sailors and Airmen they put themseleves on the wrong side of public opinion & sympathy of the average American.

    15. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      Believe me, I love Linux as much as the next Systems Administrator, but times have changed a bit for Linux security. There are so many Web Applications that bundle old insecure versions of Apache, Tomcat and PHP that it almost is just a matter of sending the right infected/targeted packets at them. If an Admin is asleep at the wheel, not tracking new files that are written as the Apache user or the UID that's running their web services, then their systems are quite likely already compromised.

      Just because it's Linux doesn't mean it's secure. It takes time to harden Linux, and it takes time to monitor your settings and network. As many have stated before, the real issue here is too many jobs are being cut that don't directly affect profits. Companies hire an SA for 6 months to setup Linux and install their new whiz-bang web app, and then they let them go onto the next contract.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    16. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      And on the other side of Tor, they're probably on free/public wifi, well away from where they live.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    17. Re:They sure have some bawlz. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Considering what's today passing as a security auditor, I'd say it's a step up from the usual "Run $security_auditing_tool, print report, hand it in as "your" report".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. And yet the US is ignoring pakistan by VAElynx · · Score: 1

    And messing up Libya. I wonder what that tells about them.

    1. Re:And yet the US is ignoring pakistan by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      How is the US messing up Libya?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:And yet the US is ignoring pakistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what i like is that in Libya the US feels they NEED to help the people, however in north korea this seems the people seem to not be oppressed enough. right?

      unless ofcourse the US has something to gain from another person power in Libya, or some big country is protecting north korea/the us already gains something from north korea.

    3. Re:And yet the US is ignoring pakistan by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Cheap Manufacturing.

      Wrong, about nearly everything in your post. There are very few North Korean factories run by South Korean companies (about 40,000 workers employed) and those factories only turn a small profit when you take into account North Korea's bellicosity, such as unilaterally shutting down the industrial park from time to time, demanding "wage increases" for its citizens, of which all goes to the North Korean state anyway.

      And the reason war won't start on the peninsula is because of a kind of "mutually assured destruction" situation there. North Korea is careful to keep its level of provocation low enough that not going to war is always less costly than dealing with literally tens of thousands of North Korean long-range artillery and rockets that are easily within range of and pointed at Seoul.

    4. Re:And yet the US is ignoring pakistan by yeltski · · Score: 1

      Everything members of NATO do is sanctioned by US.

    5. Re:And yet the US is ignoring pakistan by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Huh? They found oil in NKor? When?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Re:So... by pavon · · Score: 1

    With HTTP you have one peer - the HTTP server. With torrent you have many peers. In both cases they have access to your IP address. So it depends on how much you trust the server.

    The reason they use torrent and not HTTP for stuff like this is because
    A) they don't want to pay for the bandwidth of serving that file to thousands of people, nor to be able to be traced to that server.
    B) Free HTTP sharing sites have bandwidth limits, rat people out, and are a general PITA.
    C) With bitorrent there is less centralization so it is harder to stop distribution of the file.

  15. Re:So... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be best to use Tor to distribute it?

  16. Re:So... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    The hosting server can. An arbitrary client can't hop on and grab a list of everyone else downloading it at the same time, though.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  17. Don't be dense. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    Don't be dense. This is Lulzsec. They're just calling themselves Anonymous to get some form of protection.

  18. Re:So... by kodr · · Score: 1

    You can still use TOR if you need to.

  19. Age of Assholes by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

    On the one hand, the military and its contractors are assholes for exposing tens of thousands (and surely more) of military people's accounts to cracking and outing.

    On the other hand, Anonymous is assholes cracking and outing tens of thousands (and surely more) of military people's accounts.

    That's both hands assholes. Have you noticed that everyone in public life these days is an asshole?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Age of Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, they're mostly american military people, right? The USA is the aggressively militaristic and expansionist empire builder at the moment (sure, russia and china may be trying, but the USA is the only one really doing it). It's not all that clear that it's a bad thing in global humanitarian terms to place the american military in greater danger. (If you're american and under the delusion you're "keeping the world safe from the terrorists", well, you aren't, you ARE the terrorists. Scary door music, etc.)

    2. Re:Age of Assholes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Some think it's worth to fight what they perceive as evil by blowing themselves up. So I guess risking going to a PITA prison is rather tame in comparison.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Age of Assholes by fraudrogic · · Score: 1

      "Keep firing, ASSHOLES!"

      --
      I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
    4. Re:Age of Assholes by noodler · · Score: 1

      "That's both hands assholes. Have you noticed that everyone in public life these days is an asshole?"

      You sure you've got nothing Freudian going on there?

  20. Re:nuke in exchange for ground up security? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    That's right - the certainty of vast damage, perhaps triggering armageddon, is worth the annoyances, risks, and comparatively tiny damages of fixing security bugs.

    You're an idiot.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  21. Re:So... by MBGMorden · · Score: 1, Informative

    TOR is an end-user decision. Host it on the web and the people downloading it could use TOR, but you don't really specifically distribute via TOR.

    What you're talking about is more akin to Freenet.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  22. Re:holy crap!! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Do I understand this correctly? A group of grinning show-offs decided to Crack information from another group of people that routinely travel the planet murdering other people, no matter how well hidden the victims are?

    good luck

  23. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's "Tor", and you can host anonymously with "hidden services".

  24. Re:nuke in exchange for ground up security? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1
    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  25. What these guys are doing now is mush more serious by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    What these guys are doing now is mush more serious and may get them killed instead of jailed. They are playing Espionage Vs the US military. Selling,or giving or using for there own benefit military data that doesn't belong to them might get them a date with a firing line. And guess what, im all for it. Just because you CAN do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. If you want to play you better be ready to pay and some of theses guys might pay an ultimate price. Time will tell

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  26. So now by Prune · · Score: 1

    I guess Allen Hamilton will really be hitting the Booz!

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  27. Not Ironic - descriptive by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Not as ironic as Standard & Poor's.

    That's not ironic its descriptive for a credit rating agency. Either you make their arbitrary standard you'll be poor...just ask the Greek Government.

    1. Re:Not Ironic - descriptive by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      Greece's credit rating is the least of their concerns. As if their credit rating was responsible for all their self-inflicted problems.

  28. "Pearl Harbor" by sarku · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Didn't some top ranking official recently say something about an internet "Pearl Harbor?" You see, this isn't Anonymous, or any other basement hackers looking for lulz in all the wrong places. This is the fucking government working to tighten control over the internet.

    1. Re:"Pearl Harbor" by the_raptor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because a break in at some third rate defence contractor is equivalent to the destruction of a large part of the US pacific fleet and the deaths of thousands of US military personnel.

      A "digital Pearl Harbor" would be a break in to something like the NSA/CIA/Pentagon that allowed an enemy to gain and exploit a military advantage.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    2. Re:"Pearl Harbor" by craw · · Score: 1

      BAH is not a third rate defense contractor. They provide software to three letter USA government agencies. If a contractor to three letter agencies is compromised, then this might affect the agencies especially if some future exploitable weakness has been discovered (and not later fixe). Or information about how the agencies is implementing security or other operational things.

      Digital Pearl Harbor means many things, IMHO, but one is being surprised by an attack that you have not fully anticipated.

    3. Re:"Pearl Harbor" by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Sure, the U.S. Military could be Anonymous. It could be anyone.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    4. Re:"Pearl Harbor" by the_raptor · · Score: 1

      Microsoft provides software to three letter USA government agencies. Providing services to three letter government agencies doesn't make you a top tier contractor.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    5. Re:"Pearl Harbor" by noodler · · Score: 1

      "This is the fucking government working to tighten control over the internet."

      By breaking into private systems that have little to do with the internet?
      Suuure...
      Maybe it's time for a tin-foil hat festival?

    6. Re:"Pearl Harbor" by gknoy · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton

      Booz Allen Hamilton is a company whose core business is contractual work for the US government, and it rakes in roughly 5 billion dollars a year doing it. I think that qualifies as a "top tier" contractor by almost any definition, unless you're trying perhaps to make a top-ten list or something. (I have no idea how BAH compares to Lockheed or Northrup-Grumman, for example.)

  29. Re:nuke in exchange for ground up security? by biodata · · Score: 1

    The security problem as I see it is that some people want computers to be able to know who is using them, and have built their business and defense models as though this were the case. Un/fortunately, people are cleverer than computers and some people don't want to tell the computer who they are. You can build any software and hardware measures you like and this will still be the case. Computer networks are insecure. Enjoy this time my friend. There might come a day when computers get cleverer than us and will actually be securable. Having an internet composed of computers cleverer than we are might not be as nice as it might seem.

    --
    Korma: Good
  30. Re:holy crap!! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I marvel at your enlightened view of the world. But without proof, your views could never be verified. Please, have someone video tape you walking up to a sleeping tiger, and with all your worldly understanding, kick said tiger where the sun don't shine. If the person taping you is a close friend, suggest using a wide angle lens...

  31. Re:holy crap!! by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Tell that to to her.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  32. Re:holy crap!! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    I'd say it depends on the implementation. And a few people like this aren't enough to convince me that it's worse than the current system.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  33. Re:holy crap!! by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Well yes, you get the surgery, then when the bill comes you file bankruptcy; of course with her student loans, inability to work she'd get Medicaid to pay for her health needs and probably SSI too.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  34. MOD PARENT UP by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    Fear makes the wolf look bigger

    --
    -
  35. Re:Do America a favor, and start hacking the Chine by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah? How do you know that they aren't really some chinese special ops who convinced all you gwailo anons to do their work for them?

    --
    -
  36. Re:holy crap!! by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    None of the countries that have free healthcare have a military(specific portions of the militaries notwithstanding.) that is at all worth a damn. Moreover, in order to build up a military that could do anything, they would have to gut their social programs, including their free healthcare. The idea that if the US military became completely ineffective except at defending the US that everything would be hunky-dory is fucking delusional. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the conflits that would flare up would make the current situation look like a walk through the fucking park.

  37. Re:holy crap!! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hmm... odd, I live in a country not too different from what you describe. We have "free" health care (read: I pay for it with my taxes), we have one of the lowest crime rates in the western world, unemployment is manageable (and you can actually survive on your unemployment aid), I am looking at 4 weeks of paid vacation (mandatory, not 'cause I am so incredibly qualified that I can afford asking for it), 2 extra salaries per year (mandatory again), my retirement is taken care for (again, taxes)... yet I do not pay 120% taxes or can't get any goods in our stores because nobody wants to produce or sell anything here. Odd, ain't it?

    And know what? While the economy crisis did hit my country too, it didn't hit it by any kind of margin as hard as it did hit the US or other countries that subscribed to the ideal of "letting the market sort crap out". Why? Because people here actually do have money to buy crap. More to the point, to buy services. And since my country, like most of the "civilized" world, depend heavily on services for its GDP, our economy is still fairly stable. Services is the first thing people cut back when money is tight. A haircut? Put that off another few weeks. Fix the plumbing? Hell, let that faucet drip. Go out for dinner or the pub? Rather cook at home or watch the game with friends in your living room. That's what crippled the economy in most other countries, because people lack the MONEY to buy those services. You cannot cut back on food. You have to eat. You cannot cut back on your rent, you have to squat somewhere. But you can cut back on "vanity" like haircuts, repairs or a night on the town. We didn't have to. We still got money in the pockets of our working class people.

    So please, keep your perfect system. I like the US, the dollar's weaker than a chocolate coin in the hot summer sun and that means I get to buy cheap electronics with my, despite all odds, fairly stable currency.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  38. Re:holy crap!! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Congratulations on unearthing the case where "our" system failed.

    One thing this system does is to increase the workload on you, the patient. That's the unfortunate truth and that means that you actually have to be more self-dependent than in a system where you pay for the operations and hence call the shots. Not less. You have to take care that you went to the right doctors at the right time to get the right diagnosis so they know that you actually need that operation. It's true that you cannot simply go up to your MRT tech and demand an examination. Why? Because you don't pay for it, and the entity paying for it wants to make sure that you're not going there because you think "phhht, not my money, why should I care?". You go to your general practitioner, have him examine you and send you there. The same applies to operations. You don't go to the hospital and demand one, you get the necessary examinations done and if the need exists you get your operation. My guess can only be that she didn't do that.

    The system certainly isn't perfect. No system is. Still I'm fairly convinced that this is a very rare case compared to cases where people have to pay for operations themselves, cannot afford them and die because of it, or have the operation performed and go bankrupt over it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  39. Pro American comments here? by devent · · Score: 1

    Strong pro military comments here. It would be better if A. only hacked the emails of high military leaders, up from a General, but it's just against the law to hack the email accounts, think about it this way:

    If I bunch of teenagers could do it, so can other states do it. Who knows how long the email accounts are actually already hacked by China or N. Korea. Now A. exposed the security hole and at least the military needs to change their passwords.

    Also the US military are not good Samaritans. Who known how much dirt someone can find in their emails, like contracts to the industry, killing people, torture, etc.

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  40. Re:IT'S THE FUCKIN KOMMIES !! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Get with the times, man, the guys we don't like are labeled terrorists today.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  41. Re:Nothing as dangerous as ignorance in action by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Don't think so. I could China see say "Dammit, why did they have to? Now they might tighten their security and when we need to get in it's gonna be harder".

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  42. Re:Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You're still assuming some kind of organization in the whole mess. Anonymous is no "group" in the common sense, and I somehow doubt that LulzSec is. It's a bunch of people who sail under the same flag, but that doesn't make them a nation.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  43. Re:Do America a favor, and start hacking the Chine by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Do America a favor and do NOT do it!

    When it's time for war with China, the last thing you need is that they got a heads-up that their systems were insecure.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  44. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  45. Do it! by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 2

    And *you* could win a special meeting with the boys from Seal Team Six in the comfort of your very own home.

    1. Re:Do it! by biodata · · Score: 1

      Would mod Funny if could, or even laughable

      --
      Korma: Good
  46. Do it to other countries too. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    It's not fair that the US is the only one who gets hacked like that, they should hack all countries equally. I'm sure my own country has plenty of dirty laundry as do many others. Especially China.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  47. Re:holy crap!! by Anonymus · · Score: 1

    I've said this many times before, but that line of reasoning makes me sick to my stomach. Don't piss of the people in charge or they will punish us worse? Are we slaves afraid of our master?

    If this fans the flames, great, at least it will push the corruption and tyranny faster so that people will notice it rather than continuing to allow it to creep along giving people time to grow accustomed to it.

  48. Re:By ignoring the right to self-determination. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    How is aiding the rebels, even bombing Kadaffy's forces, messing up Libya?

    The rebels are no filthier than Kadaffy's loyalists. Only a minority of Americans ever vote in our elections. Who are these religious fanatics?

    Aren't you just a Kadaffy loyalist?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  49. Example of what i mean by extremists by VAElynx · · Score: 1

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
    And messing up Libya? Libya was up to now one of the more prosperous African countries, with a semi-decent standard of living, even compared to places like south african republic. It also has a large amount of gold, and also wasn't particularly happy about selling oil to the americans. This , as usual is just another instance of installing a government that is at least for now supposed to have deep ties to CIA and as such will bow to US whims.
    As for the elections... that points a flaw in so-called "democracy" in the USA, and definitely isn't an argument for the insurgents. You might as well be telling that being fat is healthy since a large amount of americans is obese.

    1. Re:Example of what i mean by extremists by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      All the prosperity you describe was owned by Kadaffy and distributed to the minority of people he used to protect his dictatorship. Most Libyans, like most oil producing countries' people, got nothing from it. Except being easily outgunned, and sitting out any economic development that could give them access to it or some other improvement. The large amount of gold was traded for its oil, but kept by Kadaffy.

      The current insurgency is indeed most likely boosted by the CIA. In 2006 Kadaffy faced a new US law that would have given US courts legal means to seize Kadaffy's assets stored in the US when US courts found Kadaffy liable for terrorist damages. Kadaffy wasn't singled out - it applied to all terrorist damages, already supported by the laws under which US courts were finding liability. But Kadaffy had recently completed his deal with Bush letting him back into the US oil economy, after he'd been barred because of that terrorism over many years. So Kadaffy called in the US oil corps, demanding they lobby Congress to get Libya exempted. The oil corps doubled their lobbying budget that year (it was already quite large), and got Kadaffy his exemption. But the oil corps knew Kadaffy was too much a risk of doing that whenever he wanted, so they left Libya since then (leaving behind only proxy partnerships, much harder for Kadaffy to squeeze).

      So yes, the CIA and the oil corps are behind this revolution - even if perhaps largely only in a passive role, not interfering when they have the power and the "jurisdiction". Yes, the US activity is in the US' interests. Yes, a new government will probably be better for the US' interests - which are largely the oil corps' interests.

      But so what? The US is doing this in a way that will let Libyans claim their new government as their own production. Yes, Muslim theocrats will be represented in that government - which is accurate representation of Libyans. There is no flaw in US democracy demonstrated by any of that, except that the American people have for a century and more made oil corps' interests define their own interests.

      But the Libyan people as a whole will overall benefit, at least compared to Kadaffy. And Kadaffy will suffer, leave, and perhaps even die - all of which he richly deserves. For his treatment of Americans, Libyans, and people from many other countries.

      Your argument is only for the dictator. What's your connection to him and his regime? Or maybe just to the theory that dictators are better for you and your country than a messy democracy that will sometimes have interests and values opposing yours.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  50. Re:holy crap!! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Tell that to to her.

    You Daily Fail.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  51. Re:holy crap!! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I live in the UK, and we don't have "free" healthcare. I's pauid for out of taxes. Critics always use the term "free healthcare" to imply there's something magic about it, but there's not. Out of all the things you can spend taxes on (aircraft carriers with no aircraft on, soldiers onthe other side of the world joining in with the US's petty crusade against the Taliban) healthcare is one of the most justified.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  52. Re:holy crap!! by darjen · · Score: 1

    The idea that if the US military became completely ineffective except at defending the US that everything would be hunky-dory is fucking delusional.

    If you seriously think that worldwide occupation by US military is the only thing standing between the continental USA being taken over by marauding invaders, I'm sorry but you are the delusional one. These conflicts you somehow claim would flare up are simply the result of your overactive imagination.

  53. Re:By ignoring the right to self-determination. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    Military structures are in Tripolis. IMO the mandate would include a direct attack on Gaddafi as well since he has proven himself to pose quite a threat to the civilian population.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  54. Re:By ignoring the right to self-determination. by VAElynx · · Score: 1

    . IMO the mandate would include a direct attack on Gaddafi as well since he has proven himself to pose quite a threat to the civilian population. I bet this comes from the same idea dump as that drone-bombing isn't an act of war, just a support role ,and as such there's no need for a congress mandate.

  55. Re:holy crap!! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Leaking information on current and former US military personnel is just going to fan the flames of "shut everything down" in Congress.

    It actually wouldn't surprise me if this particular leak were part of a counter-intelligence operation to discredit anon and accomplish just that. It's the kind of thing I would do if I were the NSA/CIA/FBI and wanted to garner public support for taking on anon. There have been several leaks and activities of late that I suspect weren't actually initiated by anon themselves, but were part of efforts to tar them.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  56. Not a single entity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When are people going to get that Anonymous is not a single entity? The same people doing the Scientology stuff are not the same ones doing this are not the same ones laughing at pictures of cats with funny captions. They're all different people who call themselves "anonymous" because it fits: they're random people who aren't giving away their names.

    The name associated with this post is "anonymous coward;" do you think I'm going out and protesting Scientology, hacking government emails, and laughing at pictures of cats with funny captions? Maybe the last one just a little.

  57. one of these things is not like the other by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Carter? CARTER?!!!

    The man builds houses for the poor brown peoples for Habitrail for Humanities majors.
    He's an engineer. A nuklear engineer. Hell, that's almost a rocket sciecetamist or brain sturgeon.
    He put solar panels on the Whitehouse roof and raised awareness of the conservation of energy.
    He was elected in reaction to Nixon.
    Aside for the supporting the Palestinians (wait isn't support for Israel on of the tenants of the evil corrupt machine?...), the guy doesn't seem like a agent of the lizard people.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:one of these things is not like the other by crhylove · · Score: 1

      I'll agree Carter might over all be a good man. But while in he was still working for the wrong team. Not well enough though which is why they Reaganed him out of there. Plus: He didn't spill the beans on the JFK assassination. That makes him complicit.

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  58. Re:Horribly Naive. by wintercolby · · Score: 1

    Wish I had mod points.

    --
    Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
  59. A Short Rebuttal by Borland · · Score: 1

    And probably gotten away with it because they didn't announce it to the world.

    I'm not going to quote logical fallacies to you or use odd home/car/bank analogies. Nope. I'll adapt an old cliche: "If all your friends act like dicks and steal personal information, should you?"

    And what the fsck have they accomplished anyway? Do I know what's going on in Area 51 or what the Chinese Premier's secret world domination plans are? No, I know that the Neverwinter Nights forum and a shit-ton of secondary servers aren't well protected. Mein Gott! Who knew that many systems, some important, aren't locked down tighter than a virgin at a promise-ring concert.

  60. My GF works there by phik · · Score: 1

    and says they have a 'cyber warfare' division...they need to step their game up big time.

  61. Re:Horribly Naive. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Appreciated. I'm continually surprised at how establishment friendly /. has become. Years ago it was much more anti-establishment. These days, you speak the truth against corporation, you get modded right down... :(

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  62. Re:Horribly Naive. by admdrew · · Score: 1

    OTOH, you posted your comment from a (relatively) reliable and affordable internet connection that probably is able to do unrestricted web searches. Could be worse.


    ..................not that we should ever stop trying to make it better.

  63. Re:holy crap!! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    just going to fan the flames of "shut everything down" in Congress.

    Shit : not given.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  64. Nearly 6million downloads already. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Genie ->bottle ; not going to happen.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  65. Re:holy crap!! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    The Swiss, Israel, France and Japanese have good free or nearly free healthcare and all have good militaries.

    The UK and Canada also have good healthcare but are letting costs spiral out of control and it's greatly impacting military spending.

  66. Re:So... by robsku · · Score: 1

    A non issue if you use Tor or something alike... Though you can use it for non-http protocols as well I should think...

    --
    In capitalist USA corporations control the government.