Anonymous Claims Responsibility For WikiLeaks Attack

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Claims Responsibility For WikiLeaks Attack

Posted by Unknown on Thursday September 1, 2011 @01:32AM from the bored-teenagers-being-idiots dept.

mask.of.sanity writes "Anonymous members have taken responsibility for launching a denial of service attack against WikiLeaks this week using a custom-built tool that exploits an SQL server flaw. Field tests of the tool dubbed RefRef were launched against several websites including WikiLeaks, Pastebin and 4Chan. In a Twitter account linked to the Anonymous blog, the users were described as hacktivists with 'a personal vendetta against WikiLeaks,' adding that 'we are sorry we took you down. We are even.'"

183 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

They had it comming by Mensa+Babe · 2011-09-01 01:35 · Score: 1, Insightful
Considering the news from just the last week:
I am not surprised at all that someone has finally attacked them. This is not just an ordinary organization destroying documents, leaking their own sources or suing others for doing what they themselves want us to believe is our duty, ie. leaking confidential documents. This is much more. This is ignoring the fact that people are literally risking their lives because they believed WikiLeaks. I am surprised that it was only a DDoS attack and not a more serious form of revenge. This is what you get for totally disrespecting the lives and risks of the people thanks to whom you are now rich and famous. This is just Karma coming back to you. Not surprising at all.
--
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
1. Re:They had it comming by MrNaz · 2011-09-01 01:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  False flag operations are pretty easy against anonymous, because, well, anyone can do something and claim to be them. The media can claim they're in bed with Al-Qaeda and nobody would even be able to be interviewed to confirm or deny.
  
  --
  I hate printers.
2. Re:They had it comming by bentcd · 2011-09-01 01:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  False flag operations are pretty easy against anonymous, because, well, anyone can do something and claim to be them.
  On the other hand false flag ops against Anonymous are impossible because if someone does something and claims to be them, well then they are them.
  
  --
  sigs are hazardous to your health
3. Re:They had it comming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  You don't say...
4. Re:They had it comming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Anonymous is an idea, not a group, and as such is immune to 'false flag' attacks. Reports (or comments) that run counter to that idea are merely irrelevant.
5. Re:They had it comming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  And Anonymous does not care about or even need a good public image to do what they do. So false flag operations are useless. I would not put it past some governments to attempt false flag ops though. Most governments are very stupid. USA government for one.
6. Re:They had it comming by jythie · 2011-09-01 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  I guess in that case a false flag attack would be someone who does not agree with the idea and is using the title anonymous to attack the idea. Not that far of a stretch to see a government entity doing such a thing.
7. Re:They had it comming by BenoitRen · 2011-09-01 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  In the first case, the person wasn't the spokesman for WikiLeaks any more and had set up OpenLeaks as an alternative because he didn't trust WikiLeaks any longer.
8. Re:They had it comming by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  You'll get modded into oblivion here as everyone seems to think 'Anonymous' is the best thing to happen to the world in the last 4 billion years or so.
  However, I could not agree more.
  What you see here is a cat fight between two douche bags. Both groups are just a bunch of self serving pricks seeking as much attention as they can get.
  The only good news is that anonymous will eventually fall apart, a bunch of script kiddies fucking around together never lasts, they'll fight amoungst themselves and tear themselves apart soon enough ... interestingly enough, I pretty much expect the same thing from Wikileaks.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
9. Re:They had it comming by poetmatt · 2011-09-01 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, it's complete comedy.
  How hard is it for anyone to claim anonymous for anything? Aka false flag? Pretty damn easily.
  I highly doubt anonymous had *anything* to do with this at all.
10. Re:They had it comming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:10 · Score: 0
  A few thoughts:
  
  There's so much disinformation now surrounding Anonymous, Wikileaks, and governments. It's a tinfoil hat that folds itself.
  Anonymous saying "sorry" is kind of meaningless in the absence of self control. It's like a schizophrenic who has one personality that likes to pop rounds into little kids. Even though the other 39.5 personalities are kind and gentle, we still perceive the collective individual as a threat which belongs in a padded cell under supervision.
  Wikileaks getting upset over a leak is stupid. Who watches the watchers and the watchers of the watchers? They want to be ultimate eye with their own ungoverned rule being watched by no one elected by no one answering to no one.
  I don't trust Anonymous or Wikileaks any more than the darker side of governments. All three are ungoverned rogues in society. How many citizens get a say in who Anonymous goes after? How many citizens get a say in what information should be leaked by Wikileaks? Who gets a say in an under-the-table wire tap? The answer too all these questions is a small group of individuals who think they know best and don't need the peer review of society while making decisions for it. Best intentions or no, there's danger in trusting any of them.
11. Re:They had it comming by wzzzzrd · 2011-09-01 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  I guess in that case a false flag attack would be someone who does not agree with the idea and is using the title anonymous to attack the idea. Not that far of a stretch to see a government entity doing such a thing.
  Well, they are part of anonymous in that case. This is the beaty of such non-organizations, nobody knows who is a member of the group, because there is no such thing. There isn't even a shared agenda, apart from spreading a bit of chaos and some /b4/ lulz. And a "false flag op" would only contribute to that.
  
  --
  On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
12. Re:They had it comming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:18 · Score: 0
  Also why does Slashdot hate
  ? It's got to be the most braindead styling for a list ever.
13. Re:They had it comming by Arancaytar · 2011-09-01 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  On the contrary, at least five people would consent to be interviewed, two of whom would confirm, two of whom would deny, and one of whom would show goatse pictures to the camera.
14. Re:They had it comming by Duradin · 2011-09-01 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  How do you false flag anonymous when declaring yourself to be anonymous makes you anonymous?
15. Re:They had it comming by Reilaos · 2011-09-01 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not entirely true; claiming to be Anonymous while not acting and behaving in a particular manner is like a pale skinny asian kid trying to call himself a jock while trying to keep his glasses from sliding down his nose.
16. Re:They had it comming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  Anonymous has methods of operation and channels of communication, which are naturally evolving and changing. If one person, even if they are a member of Anonymous, just does some hacking on his own without involvement of anyone else, then it is not Anonymous doing the hack, it's one individual. (Some of) Anonymous have admitted that it was them and apologised because they saw it happen from the inside.
17. Re:They had it comming by hairyfeet · 2011-09-01 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well lets see....For the first one we have a guy who makes a right wing leaning rival to Wikileaks who destroys anything that hurts right wing causes before he leaves. Duh he was paid off. I'd love to see his bank accounts for 6 months before and after the event, because i bet a BIG fat check got dropped in there.
  As for the other two? if it is online it CAN be broken into, it is just a matter of time and skill. Everyone thinks they have security but a good 99.995% of them DO NOT, simply because if the org is larger than a single guy and if that guy doesn't spend all his time at black hat he WILL miss something.
  Finally let us not forget there are quite a few 3 letter agencies that would like Wikileaks very much DEAD. not to mention the PMCs whose massive profits they are threatening. With THAT many groups with THAT much money after them? The Anons make a perfect front. The anons are shit slingers and have been in the news enough that frankly folks will believe anything and everything online can be blamed on them, so if I was gonna take a shot at Wikileaks I'd sure as hell say I was anon, it makes CYA soooo much easier.
  Frankly after that cable came out that the US gov was covering for child sex trafficking by a PMC to secure a contract, not just once but as a SOP for getting contracts, and their ONLY concern was not saving the kids but how to keep all the kiddie fucking out of the press? I wouldn't trust the US gov to tell me whether it was raining or not outside. I have no doubt if one were to trace this attack it ends up landing on addresses owned by a PMC or 3 letter bunch.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
18. Re:They had it comming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  And who are you to say that no one from Anonymous is in bed with Al-Qaeda? That's the problem with being the vague entity that is "Anonymous;" when you're a haphazard collective without a more traditional structure, you can't control what everyone in the collective does. On the one hand, that's probably at least part of the point, on the other, it kind of diminishes your ability to say that you've been framed.
  In either case, WikiLeaks had it coming. If you're going to be a complete hypocrite that disregards the safety/sanity or those you claim to support, people will get annoyed with you.
  Also, out of curiosity (and sorry for my ignorance but it only just occurred to me), does WikiLeaks specialize in American leaks? It just seems like a huge chunk of their stuff (at least that I can think of off the top of my head) is from the US Government or companies. I find it hard to believe that no other country has juicy secrets.
19. Re:They had it comming by DaveV1.0 · 2011-09-01 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Please see the "No true Scotsman" fallacy to understand why you are wrong.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
20. Re:They had it comming by Reilaos · 2011-09-01 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how that applies. I never pointed out a specific behaviour, for one thing; just that there is a certain minimum set of parameters to meet to be reasonably considered 'Anonymous.'
  That is, my statement is closer to "No Scotsman doesn't have roots in Scotland"; if someone claims to be Scottish but doesn't exhibit the core of the definition save for affecting a bad accent, then they're just playing at being Scottish.
21. Re:They had it comming by Reilaos · 2011-09-01 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for the double post, but to put it another way:
  If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it probably isn't a cat, even if it insists so.
22. Re:They had it comming by DaveV1.0 · 2011-09-01 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  But, by Anonymous' own words, Anonymous is everyone and thus anyone who claims to be a member of Anonymous is one. There is no core definition of Anonymous other than claiming to be Anonymous and performing such attacks.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
23. Re:They had it comming by MimeticLie · 2011-09-01 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  by Anonymous' own words
  Ah, but how do you know that was Anonymous?
24. Re:They had it comming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  I just had an idea!
  If you wanted to also provoke anonymous to come out and say "Nuh-uh! We didn't do it! And we can prove it!" and perhaps thereby get onto some of them, this might be worth a shot?
25. Re:They had it comming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  like a pale skinny asian kid trying to call himself a jock while trying to keep his glasses from sliding down his nose
  and beating the crap out of you with his superior kung fu.
26. Re:They had it comming by Nasajin · 2011-09-01 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ducks as a group exist prior to the existence of a duck that claims to be a cat. The basis on which one determines whether a duck is a duck is not based on what the duck claims to be, but rather aspects of phenotype or genotype. The adherence to, or confirmation of, political disposition does not have externally verifiable truths, and thus can't be assessed on the same basis. I do agree with you though: Anonymous does have tendencies. They are very broad, and they emerge out of the tendency to associate in such a group structure. Allegiance to a prior power is one thing that seems to exclude individuals from being able to legitimately claim to be a part of Anonymous (see the Phelps family 'false flag' instigation event - probably on wikipedia). I think that finding some conceptual structure within Anon won't emerge from their conversations, but by examining their behavior over time - something Slashdot thankfully helps us to do.
Wikileaks was down? by betterunixthanunix · 2011-09-01 01:35 · Score: 1

I heard there was a leak, but when did Wikileaks go offline?

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Wikileaks was down? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  They're offline like every day because they have one of those servers that runs on diamond juice and it costs them like $100,000 per day to operate. But it's free to post a sob story asking for money.
2. Re:Wikileaks was down? by Chrisq · 2011-09-01 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  But it's free to post a sob story asking for money.
  Can you send me some?
Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 01:36 · Score: 1

Anonymous vs. 4Chan. I predict this will be more interesting than any conflict this year.
1. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  sup b?
2. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  I'm lost now. Who out there has an accurate scorecard and can give a update?
  Is this like Bush Sr.'s BFF's in the Mujaheddin suddenly becoming the frenemies of Bush Jr.?
3. Re:Wow... by Pieroxy · 2011-09-01 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  "We are even"
  Wake me up when they're all out of kindergarten.
  In the meantime, let me sleep.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
4. Re:Wow... by Kamokazi · 2011-09-01 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous originated from 4chan, so is this their rebellious teenager stage where they try to run away from home?
  
  --
  As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
5. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  Thank fucking god. Those moralfaggots have been ruining the place for years. They turned our beautiful alt.tasteless into soc.culture.jewish.
War baby war. Yah! by DigiShaman · 2011-09-01 01:39 · Score: 3, Funny

"I cast... magic cyber missile! Fear my incantations for your servers are feeble to stop them."
Anyone else just find this nerd fight entertaining? Pass the popcorn :)

--
Life is not for the lazy.
1. Re:War baby war. Yah! by chomsky68 · 2011-09-01 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone else just find this nerd fight entertaining? Pass the popcorn :)
  as much as z grade movies
  
  --
  I'm Not Antisocial, I'm Just Not User Friendly
2. Re:War baby war. Yah! by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, I always love watching script kiddies who aren't even able to form proper sentences or know the meaning of the words they are using. Its just one step below the jackass movies, or Ow my Balls.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
3. Re:War baby war. Yah! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  It would be more entertaining if it didn't involve the fates of a lot of young people, internet law and law enforcement, and the global banking/political/military establishment. But it is exciting, sure. I just worry about what happens when either side wins.
4. Re:War baby war. Yah! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  The battle station is heavily shielded and carries a firepower greater than half the star fleet. It's defenses are designed around a direct, large-scale assault. A small one-man fighter should be able to penetrate the outer defense.
It's a circus now by sandytaru · 2011-09-01 01:40 · Score: 1

This is turning into Apple-Google-Samsung-HTC lawsuit circle jerk, only with suits and countersuits over information. Pass me the popcorn.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
1. Re:It's a circus now by Canazza · 2011-09-01 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Would if I could. It's being passed around alot.
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
2. Re:It's a circus now by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  Screw the popcorn, pass me a vibrater. This is getting me hot!
Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 01:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not sure how this plays into the recent bevy of activity in the CIA's shattershot attempt to sabotage and discredit Wikileaks, but I suspect someone is getting played here. First you have Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a guy with a shady and rather thin past, come into Wikileaks and immediately start stealing documents and attempting to sabotage the operation--later participating in the discrediting campaign too by writing a book bad-mouthing Assange (and starting his own competing honeypot site to boot). Then rape allegations (the same kind that Dominique Strauss-Khan suddenly found himself facing just weeks after he began questioning the value of the U.s. dollar). Now all this recent uproar.
The CIA is really throwing everything at the wall here. Looks like some of it is sticking. Well played.
Some will laugh at me for saying all this. But, let's face it, this is hardly the first time they've used similar tactics.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-09-01 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  The CIA is really throwing everything at the wall here. Looks like some of it is sticking. Well played.
  Some will laugh at me for saying all this. But, let's face it, this is hardly the first time they've used similar tactics.
  So, someone alleges something in the past, which proves that the same thing is happening in the present?
  Do consider that even "former CIA operatives" occasionally lie....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
2. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 01:54 · Score: 3
  
  Never said it *proved* anything. Just says that they've done something similar before. And this isn't a court of law.
  Jimmy caught stealing pie from Ms. Reynold's window. Jimmy caught stealing pie from Ms. Smith's window. Pie goes missing from Ms. Wilson's window. Police baffled.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
3. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  Then rape allegations (the same kind that Dominique Strauss-Khan suddenly found himself facing just weeks after he began questioning [guardian.co.uk] the value of the U.s. dollar).
  
  Sure it was "suddenly" as long as you ignore his past in which numerous other allegations were made. But hey, it's all gotta be some huge conspiracy instead, right? It couldn't possibly be that he did anything wrong.
4. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, all of those past allegations were only reported after-the-fact.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
5. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by royallthefourth · 2011-09-01 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  If the claims against the IMF head were a CIA operation, surely the US prosecutor would've actually done his fucking job and brought charges. He has a history of this sort of behavior. He's actually being protected by the US government, not attacked.
6. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  In English newspapers, maybe. But those things were reported in France and his history of affairs and borderline sexual harassment are well-known about in France. Just because you only first heard about it this year does not mean no one else was reporting on it long before then.
7. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Desler · 2011-09-01 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  He has a history of this sort of behavior.
  But...but...those were trumped up too! The CIA had a time machine to know to start trumping up all those charges a decade or more in advance to the fact that he was going to try to become the IMF head and make bad statements about the US dollar. It has to be a conspiracy! It just must!
8. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 02:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Believe what you want to. I'm sure it was just a convenient coincidence that a guy who was calling for the establishment of a new international currency that would have devalued the U.S. dollar was arrested on rape charges just weeks later, with a public "perp walk" and a DA who bragged about an ironclad case. And also just a coincidence that just *days* after he lost his IMF position to a pro-American stooge, suddenly the DA admits that he really has no case and that the alleged victim is laughably uncredible. All just happy little coincidences, in a world where the U.S. would NEVER do such a nasty thing just to advance its own economic interests.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
9. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by DNS-and-BIND · 2011-09-01 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely.
  What's the more likely scenario: an international CIA conspiracy that doesn't leak secrets and actually works, or the fact that Anonymous is just a bunch of assholes?
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
10. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by dalias · 2011-09-01 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  There is nothing similar about the sexual assault accusations against DSK and Assange. The former is a tragic case of character-assassination by a powerful serial offender against a victim to the point where the prosecution would not follow through with her case. The latter is a lot more questionable and is either a case of a much lesser assault or of character-assassination by governments against a man who was blowing the whistle and not being very careful about where he got his whistle blown...
11. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by nedlohs · 2011-09-01 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Because you would never leverage the someone's past indiscretions when doing such a thing. No far better to pick something completely out of their character and set them up for that.
  If someone has a history of drug use you would never acuse them (and plant evidence if you are being serious) of drug possession/use - no that would make it too easy. Much better to make something completely new up and set them up for that.
  If someone has a prior association with prostitutes you would never simply arrange for them to be caught with a prostitute. No! Much easier to arrange for guy who has never touched a drug in his life to be caught with some heroin.
12. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by schlachter · 2011-09-01 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, sounds like the DoD testing out a new tool and covering their tracks.
  
  --
  My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
13. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by nomadic · 2011-09-01 02:29 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  You don't really believe that utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory, do you?
14. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  Can't help but think of this quote.
  
  "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." --Thomas Jefferson
15. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Wait what? Believe what? The facts which are that his past is well-known in france? I'm sorry that these facts are inconvenient to your conspiracy ramblings but that doesn't make the facts go away.
16. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Desler · 2011-09-01 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Or, you know, it could mean he did it rather then inventing grand conspiracies.
17. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by msauve · 2011-09-01 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're ascribing way too much competency to a government bureaucracy.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
18. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  If the claims against the IMF head were a CIA operation, surely the US prosecutor would've actually done his fucking job and brought charges
  The goal was never a conviction. The goal was to discredit him long enough to get him booted as IMF head. Look at the timeline if you don't believe me. The prosecutors first admitted that their case was a joke literally TWO DAYS after a new pro-American IMF head was appointed.
  Let me help you:
  February 11, 2011: Dominque Strauss-Kahn, International Monetary Fund head, makes a speech in Washington calling for the establishment of a new global currency that would devalue the U.S. Dollar
  May 14, 2011: Dominque Strauss-Kahn arrested in New York City on rape charges. Prosecutors make him take a very public "perp walk" (with press in tow), and claim an ironclad case.
  May 14, 2011: Dominque Strauss-Kahn resigns as IMF chief
  June 28, 2011: New pro-American Christine Lagarde appointed IMF chief, with the U.S. cheering her on.
  June 30, 2011: Prosecutors meet with Strauss-Kahn attorneys and admit their "ironclad" case is a joke, later drop all charges.
  All just coincidences of course, the rantings of a tin-foil hat enthusiast.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
19. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Rakshasa-sensei · 2011-09-01 02:40 · Score: 2
  
  I don't really see how the maid being a powerful serial offender would invalidate the OP's point, that she has a history of making up fake (and very convincing) rape stories would seem to make both cases seem even more similar.
  The Assange case also involved a woman with a history of supporting the use of false rape charges for personal gain.
20. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know, do *YOU* believe that CIA hasn't done these sorts of operations (and much worse) before? In South America, the Middle East, Cuba, Asia...should I go on? Maybe we should do some reading and then come back to my crazy ideas. I'll put on my tin-foil hat and wait while you read.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
21. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by jythie · 2011-09-01 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Beyond that... lots of officals have questioned the value of the dollar.... I can not see the CIA bothering with such a plot for something so simple.
22. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  You're doing a great job of weakening the anti-CIA position by making leaky, specious arguments and completely dismissing facts (by the way, "believe what you want to" when confronted with easily verifiable facts that damage your arguments might be the stupidest and funniest response possible). There's really no reason that a person would commit to using such structurally unsound logic and openly ridiculous statements... ... unless they're trying to discredit the view they claim to hold. Your CIA badge is showing, elrous0.
23. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by jythie · 2011-09-01 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, while this particular instance seems a bit out there, the CIA does have a long and pretty unpleasant history of getting rid of officials that do not meet US economic interests. So while I doubt this particular case, there is a pretty well established history of these kinds of operations that are well accepted and documented at this point by non-crackpots. Esp when powerful corporations encounter trouble with regulations in weak countries. The things the CIA did just to get us cheap bananans is truly chilling.
24. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  booting him from the French presidentials run is far more likely
25. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  My guy flaws? It CAN'T be. It MUST be the government.
26. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Ash-Fox · 2011-09-01 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure how this plays into the recent bevy of activity in the CIA's shattershot attempt to sabotage and discredit Wikileak
  Now, now... Anyone can be Anonymous, even the CIA. Stop trying to pervert how Anonymous works.
  This action regardless of who is behind it, is Anonymous.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
27. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  I love it when morons say "facts" as if it's some magical word. They say it with the same reverence that many Christians say "Bible." They say it as if historians work with a large pile of clear, black-and-white "facts," which they just rearrange in a clear and concise manner--where history is just a chronicle of clear snippets (much like an elementary school history timeline, I suppose). That's so much more pleasant that the world that historians and journalists really work in-- a much-messier world of "evidence," "connections," "reasonable conclusions," "historical context," etc., a world where to establish any MEANING they must examine the messy grey goo of complex human social behavior, beyond rote dates and snippets.
  Tell me, what "facts" should I assemble for you? Would a statement from a CIA agent saying "This was a setup" suffice? Perhaps if I can get the President to make a speech saying "Yep, we did it" Would that be a "fact," or just the President's...like opinion, man?
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
28. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly a nice side-benefit. He was a thorn in a lot of sides.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
29. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by poity · 2011-09-01 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds plausible. But consider this ...
  If the CIA wanted DSK gone they could have created a watertight case and made him unquestionably guilty. They could easily have gotten to the defense lawyers as well. Why would they go to all that trouble only to have their great coup be unraveled by a simple 5-item timeline? It's like loose change all over again.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
30. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone should read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Perkins is a little self-aggrandizing, but it's still a great insight into how our big global/corporate/military/industrial complex actually works (especially in the poorer countries we're looking to exploit).
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
31. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Assange is hardly my guy. He's an arrogant prick in many respects, and his judgement is often rash. But that doesn't make it okay to frame him for crimes he didn't commit.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
32. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  If the CIA wanted DSK gone they could have created a watertight case and made him unquestionably guilty.
  Again, why bother? All they needed was the accusation, a perp walk from the prosecutor, and some press coverage. You don't need an airtight case for those, just a opportunistic maid and a cooperative district attorney.
  
  Why would they go to all that trouble only to have their great coup be unraveled by a simple 5-item timeline?
  Because the press is stupid and no one will listen to the handful of "tin-foil-hat-wearing nutters" who make the connections.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
33. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  lots of officals have questioned the value of the dollar.
  How many of them were the head of the International Monetary Fund, in a position to actually establish a real rival global currency?
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
34. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  But that doesn't make it okay to frame him for crimes he didn't commit.
  Or to give him a free pass just because he says so.
35. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  Time and time again, slashfags that think they're clever don't understand Occam's Razor and misquote it.
  Least assumptions. Not simplest.
  Fag.
36. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  I've thought about this too, especially when I made the Strauss-Khan association a few weeks back...I also thought with the admission that China has launched a cyber-war against us western heathens, the Feds would use Anonymous as a scapegoat for their inept security.
  Pay attention to attacks; usually Anonymous makes threat campaigns first to change their target's behavior, then attack if that behavior isn't changed. Raids usually just are mob mentality and usually they go after people who have a severe case of Unwarranted Self-Importance and smear their ego feces all over their internet.
37. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  Heh, it's one thing for a petty Bush administration to try and discredit a blogger. It's something entirely different to claim the CIA made up the rape claims against DSK just because he questioned the value of the dollar. Take off the tinfoil hate for a few minutes unless you want to get lumped in with the 25%
38. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  These are hardly "grand conspiracies." They're actually quite simple. The mafia has done operations WAY more complex that any of these. Hell, the average Ocean's Eleven movie heist is way more complex. Bribing someone with a shitload of money to sleep with a guy (or bribing someone who *had* slept with him) then to claim rape is as straightforward as it comes. Putting a plant inside an organization you want to stop is a no-brainier. Shit, a child could have pulled that much off. Really doesn't take much in the way of a cover-up either. As long as none of your agents spill the beans and the press remains stupid, you don't even really need one. Just let CNN replay the arrest footage all day and wait for the fallout.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
39. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  And you know for 100% that he is innocent based on sugar? That he said so? You do realize that all guilty.people.claim they are innocent and set up, right?
40. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  shattershot
  Just for reference, scattershot is the word you're looking for. Shattershot is a Marvel comic book story arc.
  
  too by writing a book bad-mouthing Assange
  
  If you weren't such a raving fanboy you'd realize that bad mouthing Assange requires absolutely no effort what so ever, just speak about what he's done. He had a couple years early on where Wikileaks did a couple useful things. Before that, his history shows him as a complete and total douche in every aspect. He is one of the most selfish people I've ever seen. He thinks its a great idea to make all child custody hearing information PUBLIC RECORD so that he can try to dig up some shit against the mother of his child ... ignoring the fact that it'll make all sorts of shit most kids won't want public out into the open. He cares about no one other than himself and getting attention for himself. If you can't see that, you're a complete and total idiot.
  
  Then rape allegations
  Are not really new for Assange. He has been accused of abusing women since before Wikileaks existed. The rape allegations would have been easier to write off as a lie to discredit him had he not already had a history of treating women like dogs. Go back and look at why he doesn't have custody of his own child and get a clue.
  
  Now all this recent uproar.
  What recent uproar? He has had no attention since he DID NOT GET shipped off to the US like everyone was saying was going to happen if he got arrested. In short pretty much anyone believing a word out of his mouth at this point is an idiot. He has repeatedly shown he cares about nothing more than personal attention and gaining it through any means available to him, including manipulating less intelligent people such as yourself into thinking he's a 'good guy, fighting the good fight'.
  I'd blame it on the CIA ... except they would have had to start fucking with him when he was still in high school, well before they knew that he was going to be an issue for the US. He's been a douche bag his entire life in everything he does, including the time well before the CIA had heard of him. There is no need for them to do anything, he does just fine on his own.
  Before you start believing some random man is Godly, perhaps you should look at his background first.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
41. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  No, everyone knows that the CIA does that. No one is arguing otherwise.
  Its just that its pretty clear that this time, they had no need to get involved. He did all the work for them before they even knew him.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
42. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to ignore the context of his accusation, go right ahead. Let's just pretend he wasn't towards the top of the CIA's most wanted list for a massive intelligence leak that came just weeks before his arrest. Let's ignore that he had never been accused of any crime, save hacking, prior. Let's pretend that sexual assault isn't the perfect charge to use if you want to publicly discredit someone. Let's pretend similar false charges weren't aimed at Dominque Strauss-Kahn at about the same time (whom the CIA also had a strong interest in publicly discrediting). Let's just pretend that it all happened in a nice little bubble.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
43. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is on May 14th, he resigned.
  Resignation is an admission of guilt. You quit before you can be fired so no one can say 'he was fired' and you get all of your golden parachutes on the way out the door.
  I'm sorry you don't recognize it, but I do. He made no attempt to fight the charges, so either he was guilty of that, or something worse that they held over his head and threatened to expose him for if he didn't resign ... again, making him guilty.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
44. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  You want something else to think about? Google "Mahmoud Abdel Salam Omar"
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
45. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  How is that clear? I thought the case was dropped?
46. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by SpanglerIsAGod · 2011-09-01 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  I first read that as "Jimmy caught steaming pile"
  
  --
  War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
47. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  Of course the police are baffled. They assumed early on that Jimmy is stealing pie because Jimmy wants to eat the pies. What if Jimmy's goal is really to deprive pie-bakers of the results of their labor. Once Jimmy gets the ball rolling, Anonymous can continue it all on their own, unknowingly achieving Jimmy's goals while Jimmy has a squeaky-clean alibi.
48. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Thing about even the best laid out false charges is, that under any real scrutiny under a court of law, cracks start to appear.
49. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  He made no attempt to fight the charges, so either he was guilty of that, or something worse that they held over his head and threatened to expose him for if he didn't resign
  Or he realized that giving up was the quickest, easiest way out. Not everyone can be the big hero who takes on the government.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
50. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by nomadic · 2011-09-01 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  The question isn't whether CIA has done bad things in the past, the question is whether they did THIS specific thing. The chances are slim. To engage in a conspiracy involving the NY DA's office, the police, and who knows how many others to do...what exactly? Silence someone who made a halfhearted suggestion that if anyone accepted might down the road inconvenience the US? You have failed to make your case.
51. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Xaedalus · 2011-09-01 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  How about this: embrace doubt, you moron. You're not perfect, you do not know the truth, and your theories reek more than a little of paranoia, indicating that you're spouting baseless conspiracy theories. Furthermore, you are ignoring a well-documented history of similar behavior in order to push your pet ideology. You appear to be incapable of admitting you might be wrong, which means you have a problem with doubt. I understand right now you feel you're right, but just consider that your default operating mode is *always* right, until you are wrong. So, you may very well be wrong. And if you could argue your case with some humility, and accepting the possibility that you could be wrong and NOT know it, then we wouldn't be on here calling you a moron and casting aspersions on your ideas.
  
  --
  Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
52. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by prezkennedy.org · 2011-09-01 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  If you think the IMF has that kind of power, just wait until I tell you about all the insane things the UN is plotting to do in order to take over. It's up to our CIA to stop them! *Sarcasm*
  
  --
  It started back in Team Fortress Classic
53. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  I think you put your tin foil hat on a little too tight this morning.
  Fucking nut.
54. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  The case wasn't dropped because he was innocent. It was dropped because the accuser had past honesty issues that the very highly paid defense attorney would use to assassinate the accuser's character in the jury's eyes.
55. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  >You don't really believe that utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory, do you?
  As conspiracy theories go, I'd say this seems like one of the less ridiculous. Not saying I believe it, but I wouldn't bet my head on it being impossible either.
56. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anachragnome · 2011-09-01 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  "You don't really believe that utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory, do you?"
  I do.
  I also believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration and a cabal of corporate "Brothers".
  I also believe that those 250,000+ diplomatic cables were initially released intentionally by the US government (They make others look far worse then the US. Where are all the other cables from those periods of time? Surely those cannot be ALL the cables during those years. Who selected these ones? Bradley? Were these the only ones "available"?) and that Wikileaks was in on it. Why? Because they both share what is essentially the same goal--global democracy. The US is game simply because they know that even democracy can be controlled, while Julian is just star-struck naive. Honorably motivated, but still naive.
  I also believe that Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden was killed in Tora Bora on August 15, 2007, and that the US "kept him alive" for numerous reasons (the prolonging of military/Intelligence expenditures, political currency), until such time that it became prudent to bury the whole situation at sea and cash-in politically.
  I also believe that there has been a massive shift in policy within the US government--our goals can be more easily, and profitably, achieved by the use of high-value propaganda rather then conventional proxy wars. Go get 'em, Leon!
  I also believe we are about to see the same things that have happened in the "Arab Spring" start in other traditionally non-democratic regions. I think someone just started that process in Cuba, kicked off with front-page CNN space. My guess is that Venezuela comes after Cuba., but hey, Democracy is good, no?
  I also believe that pigs can fly, provided one possesses a good catapault.
57. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by nedlohs · 2011-09-01 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously, but I wasn't the one suggesting time travel as more reasonable than using things the target has a history of already.
58. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by dalias · 2011-09-02 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  DSK, not the maid, is the powerful serial offender. If your comment was intended as a joke, it's not funny. It's offensive.
59. Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the proof is in the casual gay-bashing.
Meanwhile, in Democracyville by betterunixthanunix · 2011-09-01 01:42 · Score: 2

Wikileaks is dead, Openleaks is going nowhere, and traditional media outlets like the New York Times are not willing to publish certain things...so how do people publicize evidence of corruption? What are whistleblowers supposed to do, especially if the people they are blowing the whistle on are well connected and powerful?

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  You open a blog or whatever, dump your information there, send emails to a few websites, and it'll spread like fire. It's much harder to fight that than any organisation.
2. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by Enderandrew · 2011-09-01 02:10 · Score: 2
  
  Amnesty International
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
3. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by ClioCJS · 2011-09-01 02:29 · Score: 2
  
  blogs get shut down instantly by copyright complaints
  
  --
  -Clio
  Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
  Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
4. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by ArhcAngel · 2011-09-01 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  Who?
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
5. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 03:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Start with actually having evidence of corruption.
  At one point, thats what Wikileaks did. That ended some time ago and hasn't been the case for the last couple of years. NYT will be happy to publish anything that gets them some readers back, but you actually have to have some sort of proof before you send it to them. They don't particularly respond well when you drop a boat load of stolen documents on their door step and say 'theres bad stuff in here, I know it because its from politicians and I don't like politicians'.
  Neither does any other rational person for that matter.
  Whistle blowers really don't have a hard time getting information out, when its actually something to be concerned with. The Internet makes it absolutely trivial, as proven already. The problem is as I said, learning the difference between real corruption instead of what typically is called 'whistleblowing' which is more along the lines of 'this company/politician doesn't do what I want/insulted me/won't let me have my way/insert any other childish reason you want here as it all returns to the fact that most of these people are angsty babies.
  As I said, its not hard to get the word out. The problem is that 99.999999% of the people who like to think of themselves as 'whistleblowers' are just people who steal documents and break the law because they're too stupid to realize their point of view is unique to them and not the rest of the general population.
  Thats the thing, one lone nut job with a irrational story about evil company/government gets overlooked and ignored quickly. Sometimes it takes a little more time, as is the case for Wikileaks who managed to build up some credibility before making it clear they never deserved any such thing.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
6. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that 99.999999% of the people who like to think of themselves as 'whistleblowers' are just people who steal documents and break the law because they're too stupid to realize their point of view is unique to them and not the rest of the general population.
  That's the entire planet except for 70 people. Just how many people do you think have done this??
7. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by Enderandrew · 2011-09-01 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  There is this thing called Google. It's pretty cool. You should try it out one of these days.
  http://www.amnesty.org/
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
8. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-01 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Set up your blog as a Tor hidden service. Tell teh cyber police good luck.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
9. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by mark_elf · 2011-09-01 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  OK, I'm at Google. Now what, man?
10. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by ScentCone · 2011-09-01 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  This.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
11. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by he-sk · 2011-09-01 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  NYT will be happy to publish anything that gets them some readers back, but you actually have to have some sort of proof before you send it to them.
  Unless anything is warrantless wiretapping by the government in the name of the war against terror -- then it will sit a year on the story, enough to make sure that the President gets reelected, just because the White House asked them to.
  NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
  What the Times knew, and when it knew it
  
  --
  Free Manning, jail Obama.
12. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by Em+Adespoton · 2011-09-01 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.amnesty.org/
  They're about protecting human rights though, not about whistleblowing, per-se.
  They tend to work via traditional means, and do a pretty good job of it.
13. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by Enderandrew · 2011-09-01 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  Wikileaks has been more about calling out what they see as government abuse than traditional whistle-blowing as well.
  Amnesty International has never released a huge leak with unprotected civilian names, like Wikileaks has. Amnesty International has been calling out government corruption and human rights violations for years. I feel that they're overlooked in this conversation while everyone is donating money to Wikileaks.
  Amnesty International has also called out Wikileaks for being irresponsible in leaking civilian names, which led to those civilian volunteers getting death threats. To that, Assange responded that people should give him more money if they want civilian names redacted. In all fairness, they have redacted more names since then, but that is a pretty deplorable response.
  I'm all for exposing government corruption and human rights abuses. I just trust Amnesty International more when it comes to that goal.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
14. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by l0kl1n · 2011-09-01 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Is the problem really Wikileaks or is it that fucking prat Assange? He was the one who pissed of The Guardian and NYT so badly they don't want anything to do with him. What you need is someone who can run Wikileaks without all the ego. Someone who can be sensible (e.g. redact names of informants in leaked documents) but be steadfast about publishing what comes in without making it all about him/her.
15. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by KahabutDieDrake · 2011-09-01 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  So who should do it? I have a nomination... Anonymous. Who could do it better? Their politics won't get in the way, because their politics are basically, fuck you.
16. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by cavreader · 2011-09-01 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Copy your shit to a USB drive and send via mail to 100's of media related organizations. Chances are at least a few of them will take it from there and continue to distribute the info.
17. Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville by cavreader · 2011-09-01 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly evidence is does not matter in today's information age. Accusations sprinkled with a little conspiracy theory and the "truth" becomes self evident to those looking to use the information to support their personal viewpoints and opinions.
In other news by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 01:45 · Score: 0

In other news, Wikileaks obtains the home address, social security numbers, and credit card information of all the Anonymous group. More news at 10.
This Doesn't Make Sense by Caraig · 2011-09-01 01:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

This doesn't make sense, though. Anon -- or at least part of Anon -- went out and slammed a bunch of credit-card companies for denying donations to WikiLeaks. And now Anon is saying they attacked WikiLeaks? I don't buy it. As recently as last week they were still expressing support for WikiLeaks, and were noting that WikiLeaks and their own servers were under attack. And 4chan? 4chan is their home turf, why would they DDoS that?
I grok that Anon is decentralized to the point of schizophrenia, but to this extent?

--
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
1. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Baloroth · 2011-09-01 01:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Anonymous is a mob. Like all mobs, they lack restraint or control and will eventually turn on, well, anyone they can. Including their home soil or the people they pretend to defend.
  Of course they'll also a mob on the Internet, and lack the power to do anything of real consequence, like burning down a house. The result is that the whole thing is really quite funny, instead of tragic and a horrible crime.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
2. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Lose · 2011-09-01 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  >He thinks 4chan is home turf for "Anonymous."
  
  If they were all 13 year olds firing up Low Orbit Ion Cannon to DDOS some randomly selected website (by trips get of course), then yeah, Anonymous exists there en masse.
3. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Anon isn't, and never has been, one group.
  Anonymous is a blanket term to describe a huge number of sub-groups that operate under the label.
  4chan isn't their home turf either. 4chan is one of the many sites where groups operate on, but for the most part, rarely do anymore.
  The whole Anonymous movement (the actual one, not just the whole Anonymous Legion mentality meme from 4chan), despite rumors, never even started on 4chan in the first place.
  It started on another numbered-chan that I cannot remember for the life of me. (pretty sure it was a triple digit one)
  Previous to that, it was just a bunch of random groups doing their own things.
  Anonymous is a group of personas constantly in-fighting for supremacy. Sometimes they work together for a great goal, sometimes they will do everything to destroy each other.
4. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Andy+Dodd · 2011-09-01 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Also, 4chan is basically the birthplace of Anonymous... Why would they attack it?
  Something is VERY fishy here - the three entities attacked are the last three entities on this planet I could imagine Anonymous attacking.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
5. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Duradin · 2011-09-01 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Why do rioters burn and loot their own neighborhoods?
6. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by MobyDisk · 2011-09-01 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Read the article. It was just one member, and they were just testing their tools. The article summary is written almost as poorly as the original article so it really isn't clear.
7. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by geekoid · 2011-09-01 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  UM, society runs on the internet. Wait until someone takes down a bank or credit card company in a way where data is permanently lost. This you will see real damage.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
8. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by vijayiyer · 2011-09-01 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  What's terrifying is if that mob start attacking poorly secured internet connected infrastructure.
9. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Kamokazi · 2011-09-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  It is where the 'Anonymous' identity/idea originated. It's as close to a home as there is. Anonymous is everything from 13 year-olds with LOIC to legitimate hackers with botnets at their disposal. Although reporting on 4chan getting DDoS'd is about like reporting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning. It's only news if it doesn't happen.
  
  --
  As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
10. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by NotBorg · 2011-09-01 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Why is it so hard to believe that an organization [sic] with no structure would behave that way? Is there a leader? A board? Do they take a vote on their next move? Or is it just anarchy. And you're trying to find some sense of order in it?
  
  --
  I want this account deleted.
11. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Eightbitgnosis · 2011-09-01 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe one day they'll invade themselves
12. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by ScentCone · 2011-09-01 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  This doesn't make sense
  Are you equally perplexed when peace protesters burn buildings, or when a bunch of people unhappy about how a soccer game turned out decide to destroy a bunch of their city's infrastructure? Packs of people, mostly adolescent and presuming they can act with impunity because they're wearing real or virtual scarves over their faces, do exactly the sort of stuff you think makes no sense.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
13. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  Parts of Anonymous have attacked 4chan several times in the past, making another part cry, another curse, and another laugh.
  Welcome to Anonymous.
14. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Bruce+McBruce · 2011-09-01 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, have you ever seen Anonymous? Attacking their own site seems exactly like something they'd do. That's one part of all this I've got no trouble with processing whatsoever.
15. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Em+Adespoton · 2011-09-01 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Why do rioters burn and loot their own neighborhoods?
  I don't know... why do they? All the riots I've seen recently were mostly out-of-neighbourhood jobs. The spectators tend to be local, but the hooligans tend to do their dirty work in other people's neighbourhoods. The times when I've heard of the burners and looters run amok on their own turf was when someone more powerful had already taken that turf from them.
  As far as I know, not much has changed recently at 4Chan or Wikileaks.
16. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by DaveV1.0 · 2011-09-01 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Wait until someone takes down a bank or credit card company in a way where data is permanently lost.
  Yeah, because companies don't back up their data.
  
  Real damage would be, say, blowing up the primary data center for a company and even that assumes the company doesn't have a decent disaster recovery plan. If they do have a good DR plan, one would have to take out the data center, and the DR location.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
17. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by DaveV1.0 · 2011-09-01 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous has always struck me as like the Orks in the Warhammer 40K universe. If they don't have anyone else to attack, they will attack each other.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
18. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by CyberDragon777 · 2011-09-01 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Also, 4chan is basically the birthplace of Anonymous... Why would they attack it?
  For the lulz.
  
  --
  We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
19. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 15:14 · Score: 0
  
  It makes perfect sense: http://xkcd.com/834/
20. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 16:07 · Score: 0
  
  Something is VERY fishy here - the three entities attacked are the last three entities on this planet I could imagine Anonymous attacking.
  Yup.
  I'm calling bullshit and blaming the entire Op on Aaron Barr.
21. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 19:59 · Score: 0
  
  Why do rioters burn and loot their own neighborhoods?
  To achieve cognitive dissonance and factional distrust we... oops, sorry, wrong meeting.
Obligatory XKCD by Noughmad · 2011-09-01 01:54 · Score: 0

834

--
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
1. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Obligatory XKCD
  Read it now! Right NOW!!! READ IT, GOD DAMN YOU!!!
No, we did it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:00 · Score: 5, Funny

We, the hacker group known as Anonymous Coward, are responsible for the attack. Anonymous is simply trying to take credit for our actions.
1. Re:No, we did it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  we are pigeons
2. Re:No, we did it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  I always knew Anonymous were cowards. :P
  Oh, and by the way, what you know as the "Anonymous group" is actually the CIA's Wikileaks Task Force [Yes, that's "W.T.F.", which is a reason to go WTF. ;], and completely unrelated to the subculture called "Anonymous". (Actually it's quite the opposite.)
3. Re:No, we did it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, sure. You complain about Anonymous taking credit for your actions while at the same time using my own name to take credit for my actions.
  Hypocrite.
  -Anonymous Coward
4. Re:No, we did it by jafac · 2011-09-01 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's it. Now you have made an enemy of Just Another Fucking Anonymous Coward!
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
5. Re:No, we did it by Em+Adespoton · 2011-09-01 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  We all know that Anonymous Coward is responsible for some of the earliest DDoS attacks in the Internet....
Wow, talk about the wrong target... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:07 · Score: 0

The destroyed documents were NOT WikiLeaks. The guy who did that is opening up a competitor to WL. So wrong target.
The leak at WL was the same guy. So wrong target.
Guardian suit would indicate that the Guardian readers are doing it. Yeah.
Nope, you're theory doesn't pass the sniff test.
Oh look, Conspiracy Corner open for business again by Viol8 · 2011-09-01 02:12 · Score: 2

"The CIA is really throwing everything at the wall here"
Sure. If anything the slightest bit unfortunate happens to any hacktivist sacred cow then it - duh! - has to be the CIA. Or FBI. Or NSA. Or some government black hat organisation that only the l337 know about.
Get a fucking grip. If the CIA wanted to take down wikileaks they'd go for the people, not the infrastructure. And why do it now? 6 months ago would have been a lot more useful.
But hey , why bother thinking it through when a good ole conspiracy theory will suffice eh?
BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:12 · Score: 0

Anonymous has always been a supporter of Wikileaks, and 4Chan is an asset of Anonymous. The claim that Anonymous is behind it, is completely false. They would be attacking themselves.
This is clearly done by somebody trying to discredit Anonymous, but both the victims and Anonymous are smart enough to figure it out. The only idiots who believe otherwise are those that have been brainwashed, and are still slaves to the system. Their minds are not yet free.
Those who are truely behind it, are the same kinds of people that think it is okay for police to do whatever they like to anybody for any reason; that think it is okay for politicians to make laws to infringe upon rights, take your money and property; make up charges against you and use any trick in the book, to get their way, regardless of it being right or wrong.
If you are one of those people then you need to free your mind. Turn off your TV for at least 1 year. No cable, no satelite. 1 year, and you will be able to start seeing the world around you as it truely is.
1. Re:BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for this, I haven't laughed that hard in some time.
Who to DDoS next? by diorcc · 2011-09-01 02:13 · Score: 1

Whats the matter, ran out of targets? Itchy trigger fingers... Ooh, I know, we'll get more drama by joining the anti-WL bandwaggon for a while!! Back to the usual "I just wanted to see if I could do it" 'hacking' styles.
RefRef by cultiv8 · 2011-09-01 02:15 · Score: 2

RefRef is the new LOIC, interesting write-up here, confirmed accurate by @AnonCMD.

Is this what took down Wikileaks?

--
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
1. Re:RefRef by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Who cares? @AnonCMD is nobody. The link to "hackernews" says...
  
  According to Developer "RefRef is a revolutionary DoS java site. [snip]"
  Fuck off.
But who is anonymous this time? by tpotus · 2011-09-01 02:30 · Score: 1

That's the thing with anonymity, isn't it? Anyone can be anonymous on the internet. Isn't one of the main ideals behind anonymous that it cannot be false-flagged? Notice how the media and even /. is trying their hardest to portray anonymous as a single, organized group.
1. Re:But who is anonymous this time? by infurnus · 2011-09-01 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  That's the thing with anonymity, isn't it? Anyone can be anonymous on the internet. Isn't one of the main ideals behind anonymous that it cannot be false-flagged? Notice how the media and even /. is trying their hardest to portray anonymous as a single, organized group.
  Gee golly I sure wish I had mod points
2. Re:But who is anonymous this time? by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  IT IS a group.
  Its a group of people who probably don't know each other, but all want to be associated with the same thing, that thing being the name 'Anonymous'.
  The good news is, by doing so, every moron that flies the 'Anonymous' flag is part of a criminal organization and can be treated as such. No longer can you be punished JUST for your crime, you are also responsible for the actions of the organization you are part of.
  Go ahead, keep being idiots and claiming yourself as part of 'Anonymous'. All it will take is one event and you'll end up in gitmo with the rest of the terrorists. Guilty of evil doings or not, when you associate yourself with a criminal organization, you're going to get treated as such. Just ask all the guys in gitmo who up until sometime in the last 10 years had never even SEEN an American how well being associated with Al-Queda worked out for them.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Oh look, Conspiracy Corner open for business ag by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 02:51 · Score: 1

The CIA learned a long time ago that discrediting was a WAY better tactic than anything as messy as assassination. Give them some credit for not being completely stupid. Think of it as a kindler, gentler CIA.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
They Sure did have it coming by FriendlyLurker · 2011-09-01 03:17 · Score: 2
Considering the news from just the last week:
I am not surprised at all that powerful organizations continue to attack them, cheered on by the usual propaganda fan club.
1. Re:They Sure did have it coming by MimeticLie · 2011-09-01 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, HBGary sure is a powerful organization.
Re:Oh look, Conspiracy Corner open for business ag by Viol8 · 2011-09-01 03:18 · Score: 1

Assassination of people running a website? Christ , you really are off with the pixies. I meant arresting them on trumped up charges.
Anonymous is a pile of useless by sirwired · 2011-09-01 03:18 · Score: 1

"Anonymous" and "LulzSec" - launched DDoS attacks and data thefts are about as useful a form of internet activism as the ubiquitous "Post this as your status if you want to support stopping [insert random evil here]."
Re:Oh look, Conspiracy Corner open for business ag by elrous0 · 2011-09-01 03:19 · Score: 1

Why arrest all of them when they only need to discredit one?

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Innocent unless proven guilty by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 03:59 · Score: 0

Or are you a facist?
Re:Oh look, Conspiracy Corner open for business ag by BitZtream · 2011-09-01 04:06 · Score: 1

The CIA has ALWAYS worked this way.
They assassinate when the person they are going after can not be made to look any worse than they are.
You assassinate drug cartel members, you discredit politicians.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 04:27 · Score: 0

Anonymous would never 'take down' 4chan.
It's clearly a false flag operation.
Profit? by slapout · 2011-09-01 04:33 · Score: 1

Step 1: Someone gets hacked
Step 2: Take credit for it
Step 3: ?
Step 4: Profit!

--
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Obvious false flag is obvious. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 04:53 · Score: 0

Let's just assume for a second that you wanted to tighten laws governing on-line privacy, In the direction of making it illegal to "post online anonymously"
What would you do to garner public support?
1. Attack services that the public likes to use.
2. Convince people that "anonymous" is a group.
This news article is running under the assumption that all people that post claiming to be "anonymous" or "lulzsec" are part of a co-ordinated group.
That's just silly, the whole point of being "anonymous" is that anyone could be doing it, so you can't single out and punish them.
Wow, now I've seen it all. by merc · 2011-09-01 05:03 · Score: 1

I expect any day now for Anonymous to launch a DDoS attack against itself.

--
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Re:Oh look, Conspiracy Corner open for business ag by jafac · 2011-09-01 06:06 · Score: 1

Assassination of Character.
Method, tried and true. . . pioneered by the good Senator McCarthy, from Wisconsin.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
HAHAHA by Caerdwyn · 2011-09-01 06:47 · Score: 1

...and the anarchist-wannabe "you're not the boss of me" teenage-brained script kiddies turn on each other. This is going to be funny.
Today's lesson: a copy of 5-year-old rootkits written by someone far more intelligent than yourself and downloaded after a Google search, plus a black T-shirt and a Front 242 CD, do not make you Che Guevara or James Bond or Robin Hood.

--
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
1. Re:HAHAHA by DaveV1.0 · 2011-09-01 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Che Guevara wasn't really a revolutionary. He was just an opportunistic psychopath who found a way to legally indulge in his homicidal activities by joining a revolution.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Re:Oh look, Conspiracy Corner open for business ag by Xaedalus · 2011-09-01 06:50 · Score: 1

And yet the world is still full of bad guys. Tell me oh wise one, if the CIA is so powerful and has ALWAYS worked this way with unparalleled success and competency, then why isn't our world a better place right now?

--
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Next in the news: by Requiem18th · 2011-09-01 07:39 · Score: 1

Anonymous claim of attacking WikiLeaks originating from IP addresses owned by The Guardian...

--
But... the future refused to change.
A candid look... by Anachragnome · 2011-09-01 08:12 · Score: 1

A candid look at the inner-circle of Anonymous leadership...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsg0EvZozI
4-Chan? Really? (1:45)
Re:Oh look, Conspiracy Corner open for business ag by tidepool · 2011-09-01 10:16 · Score: 1

And yet the world is still full of bad guys. Tell me oh wise one, if the CIA is so powerful and has ALWAYS worked this way with unparalleled success and competency, then why isn't our world a better place right now?
I'm sure that all depends on your qualifier 'our'.
It's no doubt a better place for certain people. Sadly, it doesn't sound you're part of that group.
A shame.
Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-01 12:08 · Score: 0

Hmm on hand the only people and or groups that really hates those 3 sites is the US government and have been against them forever.. and any group bent on anarchy on the web wouldn't help big brother out with their vendettas.
Seems super flimsy.. how are the claims made for credit?? If their anonymous anyone could make these claims so any claim should automatically be null unless they plaster it on the target them selves or make such claims before the attack.