Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Posts Audio of Intercepted FBI Conference Call

DrDevil writes "A member of the computer hacking group Anonymous has hacked into a telephone conference between the FBI and Scotland Yard (London Police) and posted it on the internet. The Daily Telegraph has a comprehensive article on the hack. The audio of the call can be heard here." Reader eldavojohn snips as well from the AP's story as carried by Google: "Those on the call talk about what legal strategy to pursue in the cases of Ryan Cleary and Jake Davis — two British suspects linked to Anonymous — and discuss details of the evidence gathered against other suspects."

76 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. I Guess This Means ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Anonymous can listen to FBI calls then they'll certainly know when the FBI will be coming to kick down their door.

    This will really piss off the FBI and it will be the political motivation for the FBI to pull out all the stops to find members of Anonymous.

    1. Re:I Guess This Means ... by doconnor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The more resources the FBI puts into find members of Anonymous, the easier it will be for Anonymous to know what they are doing.

    2. Re:I Guess This Means ... by noh8rz2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what stupids. having developed the ability to intercept FBI calls, they expose themselves to get some lulz on a boring legal call. Now they've closed down that vector, and face more scrutiny. Immature amateurs.

    3. Re:I Guess This Means ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a law abiding person, and I'd rather see some civil disobedience than government officials corrupt with power doing whatever they want.

      I'm pretty sure the FBI routinely breaks more laws than Anonymous, so this just restores the natural checks and balances our government has gotten rid of over the years.

    4. Re:I Guess This Means ... by gregulator · · Score: 5, Informative

      They have not developed the ability to intercept FBI calls.

      They have developed the ability to read their emails, in which the credintials for logging into a phone conference are in plain text.

    5. Re:I Guess This Means ... by doconnor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The conference call seems to be the tip of the ice burg. They knew about the call because they are intercepting FBI/police emails.

      The more people involved the more opportunities they have to gather information.

    6. Re:I Guess This Means ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The FBI has been violating the Constitution for years by attaching GPS tracking devices to suspect's cars without a warrant. And the FBI has been violating the law with regards to National Security Letters.

      Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    7. Re:I Guess This Means ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think his point was that they've shown their hand either way, and he's probably right.

      Self-identifying Anon folks aren't NSA employees. Without serious restraint and forethought any advantage they've got is momentary. That overwhelming desire to brag is a weakness.

  2. So Anonymous found a weak link and exploited it by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seems to me a clever FBI/Scotland Yard, could take advantage of that to find their listeners.

    If nothing else I expect they'll be a bit more careful now, which could be a good thing. Anonymous likes to brag about accomplishments .. more insidious people have no desire to make it known they are tapping in.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  3. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the government can listen to our calls (without a warrant) then why can't we listen to theirs?

    1. Re:Question by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama DID promise much greater transparency in government. Of course, he completely broke that promise, so Anonymous is just holding him to it.

    2. Re:Question by kernelphr34k · · Score: 3, Informative

      Obama made a lot of promises during his run for president.There is no law that states he can't lie, but he he did. He got votes, elected president as people assumed there would be 'change' for them, instead there was change for the elitists, banks and wall street. (bad grammer but dont care)

      This should not be new for anyone.. He's not the first President to lie to Americans to gets votes for his personal agenda. Bush did it too, but he also rigged the election which was later proven, yet no one is punished.

      America needs to wake up! Big banks still rule, wall street has not changed. The Obama administration lies to us and takes away our constitutional rights everyday.

    3. Re:Question by bfandreas · · Score: 3, Informative

      This blurb tells a little bit more about the prank
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/03/anonymous-hack-met-fbi-call
      The press is going to have a field day tomorrow. Is this the sound of a thousand hacks giggling while typing opinion pieces? I shall read the all. Also somebody will have all the headlines tatooed on his foreskin. With a hammer.

      This is truly wonderful.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    4. Re:Question by wickedskaman · · Score: 2

      ^ Incredible semantic gymnastics at work here.

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
  4. Dragnet by TankSpanker04 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Based on the vague discussion details and how the FBI sent out an email with the conference call number and password, it sounds more likely to be a setup by the FBI to lure Anon into the call so they could glean more location data off of them.

    1. Re:Dragnet by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Based on the vague discussion details and how the FBI sent out an email with the conference call number and password, it sounds more likely to be a setup by the FBI to lure Anon into the call so they could glean more location data off of them.

      Nah. Never expect cleverness where carelessness would as easily explain how it was achieved.

      Some agent has been found and his mailbox is regularly visited for content of interest. Use some better security, send out a honeypot once in a while and see who connects, etc. This is a lesson for FBI and Scotland Yard not to take their security for granted. Could have been worse.

      I'm certain anyone else who was privy to these conference calls is highly annoyed at the exposure, which will result in some changes.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Dragnet by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Besides, anyone who would hit so close to the enemy through a traceable connection is a moron.

      Not even necessary to trace their connection - with each incident they expose vulnerabilities and the means used to exploit them. It's almost a service to government and industry, helping harden their systems. Certain this is not what they intend, but it is what they are accomplishing.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  5. They aren't heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anonymous aren't heroes. They're the worst type of vigilantes, who in their own minds are drunk with power. They're the internet equivalent of a mob of Molotov-cocktail tossing anarchists who burn things down because it's fun to do. They rationalize their behavior any way they can, and I imagine the replies to this comment will be to do the same. Now they're being apprehended and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them?

    1. Re:They aren't heroes by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're the worst type of vigilantes, who in their own minds are drunk with power. They're the internet equivalent of a mob of Molotov-cocktail tossing anarchists who burn things down because it's fun to do. They rationalize their behavior any way they can

      The problem is this same statement pretty well applies to the FBI and CIA and insert Gov agency here since 9/11.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:They aren't heroes by Erect+Horsecock · · Score: 2

      Says Anonymous Coward

      --
      I hope you die painfully and alone.
    3. Re:They aren't heroes by SendBot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I mean this question in all seriousness: In this new information age in which we find ourselves, who ARE the heroes and who are the villains among these?

      1. Wikileaks / Bradley Manning / Julian Assange
      2. The justice department in conjunction with the overzealous copyright lobby and their partner brain slugs attached to the heads of the US executive branch
      3. "Illegal" immigrants
      4. The 1% that siphons wealth out of the country so they can get a generous cut along the way
      5. The proletariat who are mostly content with the way things are, but would be fully content if there was just more of it.
      6. Television news media
      7. The US congress
      8. The US military
      9. Anonymous / Lulzsec / 2600

      Here's my OPINION (for what it's worth, don't feel obligated to buy it)
      Heroes: 1,3,8,9
      Villains: 2,4,6,7
      Undecided / Neutral: 5

      What destruction has Anonymous caused that compares to suppression of the 1st amendment? They're effectively just calling shenanigans loud enough for everyone to hear, and I find it hilarious how much offense their opponents take in response.

    4. Re:They aren't heroes by ackthpt · · Score: 3

      So it's wrong to make sure the government isn't up to no good? You sound like you would have been a loyal Nazi sympathizer back in the 30s.

      All this is doing is making government more careful.

      And resulting in the occasional arrest of some child with parents who don't check up on them often enough.

      Reminds me of Oliver Wendell Jones from Bloom County.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:They aren't heroes by HFShadow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you can't make an argument without making some stupid stereotypical nazi comment, you probably shouldn't be making the argument.

      It's not that it's wrong to watch the government, it's wrong how they do it.

    6. Re:They aren't heroes by eddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, if the FBI and the Yard does not have anything to hide, then why are they so upset about being listened in on? They LOVE to live in a surveillance society so much that they're the primary force in bringing it to be!

      You should ALWAYS listen to what the police say.

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    7. Re:They aren't heroes by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Believe it or not, there are shades of grey between "I don't want 4chan dabbling in national security" and "I am a genocidal totalitarian".

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:They aren't heroes by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >Anonymous aren't heroes. They're the worst type of vigilantes

      Perspective, wherefore art thou? The worst type of vigilantes rip people apart, physically - body from limb, burn homes, kill families and innocent people; baying, pitch-fork-wielding, lynching, bloodthirsty mobs.

      Personally, I see Anonymous as a cross between Robin Hood and Loki.

      I'm not saying nobody's going to get hurt, but part of me really rather likes them.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    9. Re:They aren't heroes by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So it's wrong to make sure the government isn't up to no good? You sound like you would have been a loyal Nazi sympathizer back in the 30s.

      Didn't waste any time getting to Godwin, did we?

      There's a big difference between being an active citizen and doing common sense things to hold your government accountable, and undertaking what is essentially an intelligence op not too different from what a hostile foreign spy agency would have done against your own government. You need to put away the silly V for Vendetta mask and realize that this is way out of bounds. This isn't protesting, this isn't marching, this isn't a hunger strike. This is a direct attack on law enforcement, and that's only going to end in one way.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    10. Re:They aren't heroes by Bicx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Anonymous were a legitimate organization worth respecting, they wouldn't be doing stupid shit like uploading an intercepted FBI/Scotland Yard conversation regarding their own investigation. Even if the U.S. were equivalent to Nazi Germany, I still wouldn't endorse Anon. A legitimate movement has a well-defined goal and an end game with a mature means to reach it.

      Please avoid personal attacks on Slashdot just because you don't agree. Yours was particularly tasteless and inflammatory.

    11. Re:They aren't heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am a well-adjusted, tax-paying, home-owning, voting, employed, married, graduate-educated, 30-something American citizen. My political views are fairly main stream. It is remarkable how freedom and privacy I've lost and how much power the government has gained in my lifetime. I want more freedom and more privacy, even if I must pay with safety and money. I no longer see the police and the federal security apparatus as working in my interests. It is gratifying to see someone take them on and win. The Anonymous idea is intoxicating; even if it is rough around the edges. I wish them the best.

      --ANON, JD, MBA

    12. Re:They aren't heroes by OWJones · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reminds me of Oliver Wendell Jones from Bloom County

      Nah, I haven't been arrested yet.

    13. Re:They aren't heroes by SendBot · · Score: 2

      As I see it, the military works for the people, but are controlled by congress, who are supposed to be working for the people, but have been corrupted and now work for the 1%. I don't see the military as victims because it's voluntary service, and I don't see them as neutral because they get blown up and shot at a lot more than most lines of honest work.

      Uh oh... did I just imply that the military is honorable? Here it comes...

    14. Re:They aren't heroes by Phoenix666 · · Score: 2

      > "that's only going to end in one way."

      Freedom?

      --
      Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    15. Re:They aren't heroes by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

      What destruction has Anonymous caused that compares to suppression of the 1st amendment?

      Well said. Thanks.

  6. Like Watching at The Zoo... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...as some idiot climbs the fence to the bear exhibit so they can cuddle with the huge teddy tear. You just know it's not going to end well.

    Anon can't stay one step ahead forever.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Like Watching at The Zoo... by sycodon · · Score: 2

      And I don't think Anonymous is as smart as they and their fans believe they are.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Like Watching at The Zoo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I guess you sort of don't get the point of anonymous. They don't two [insert fecal reference here] because they are anyone and everyone, they blend right into the crowd. It could be anyone you know or don't know and people don't even have to join anonymous to be anonymous. These are basically random acts of terror. They don't really "decide" to do things as a group. Some random guy out there just suddenly decides, hey I'm going to go and do this and this and announces it to everyone. For example, the "public" opinion in "anonymous," which just so happens to match the general public opinion at large at the time, was that the Sony attacks and other related video game hacks were going to far and undermined public opinion of the "group" as a whole. Also, a lot of them are gamers too, so they weren't too happy with the idea of attacking gamers, in general. But, one or two "members" just decided gamers needed to be trolled, and did so. And, the fact that other anonymous members were annoyed by it, just made their trolling sweeter. Also, there were other members who simply get off on following the rest of the sheep in any attack they decide to do, so even though they might not have been in favor of it they just went along with it because that's where the action was.

      They're the epitomy of a pure anarchy. They coordinate by accident, and when they don't they act as lone wolves and do things of their own accord and agendas. And, the FBI and powers that be catch a few here and there, but it's like trying to stop whistle blowing for example there's always going to be more out there "joining" every day. Except that they're not really "joining" per se, all you need to do to be a supposed member is commit a random attack, brag about it, and stay anonymous. The moment your identity is known, e.g. you got doxxed, then you're no longer a "member" of the group. The ones they catch don't know any of the other members. Hopefully, that puts things in perspective.

      Basically, they're unstoppable. Maybe you can scare the group as a whole, sort of. For example, when some members were captured during a protest and taken by the Mexican mafias. Other "members" essentially negotiated for their safe release, using probably the only method they had at their disposal, blackmail. However, the mafia said to anonymous, that they would release the members but that if anonymous continued to expose and attack the mafia they would kill 1 innocent a day or something like that. Guess what anonymous did after their member's release? Sure enough, they went right back to exposing / attacking the mafia. Some "members" are amoral and really don't care, and some do care. But, the ones who care can't stop the ones that don't from doing simply anything they please. Just like if you picked a handful of random members of the general population, you'll find some people that care about others, some that don't, and some that may even amount to being criminal.

      The concept of anonymous is a pretty dangerous thing. Just like the war on terror, it's asymmetrical warfare. I'm reminded of an old saying, "It is easier to destroy than create." -- Niven's 6th law.

      They're probably going to be with us a very long time, the genie is out of the bottle. Even if you tracked every single communication and person in the world, they're going to find a way around it. They have a lot of hackers as members, great ones and not so great ones. Ironically, probably a hundred years from now they'll be the only thing standing between the average population and an absolute world totalitarianism that controls everything we think, say, and do. That's the only comforting thought I can think of about this whole fiasco.

    3. Re:Like Watching at The Zoo... by Sedated2000 · · Score: 2

      I come to these articles for the spooky and edgy "Anonymous" posts that describe the group as some sort of comic book super friends community that lurks in the darkness. It always feels very much like the first Hackers movie, but without Angelina Jolie. In every one of these articles, there is at least one "Anonymous is everyone and no-one" style post. Those Anonymous Cowards... never disappoint.

    4. Re:Like Watching at The Zoo... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      the gov has to be careful, as well. martyrs can be a back-fire on the cause of the oppressor.

      public opinion can change REAL FAST on this.

      which is one reason the gov wants total control over the internet. they want to squash news of anything that shows them to be the bad guys or showing bad actions on their part.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  7. Anonymous is the least of their worries... by TravTrav · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After all, if what amounts to a few script-kiddies can get this deep into confidential material, how much more material can a determined, knowledgeable, and well-funded adversary get?

    1. Re:Anonymous is the least of their worries... by eddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps the lesson is rather that Anon isn't ONLY made up of scriptkiddies. I know, goes against the talking points, but at some point they do get a bit tired.

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    2. Re:Anonymous is the least of their worries... by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Right, Anonymous does have a few competent people who are of course in no way, shape, or form their leaders, they just happen to direct the actions of everyone else in Anonymous and do most of the stuff that keeps Anonymous relevant. But they are not their leaders, because Anonymous doesn't have leaders, everyone knows that.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:Anonymous is the least of their worries... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who's to say that there's not an occasional "Anon" that also works for the FBI?

      Here's how to scare 'em: "We are all moles".

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  8. Cone of Silence by WillgasM · · Score: 5, Funny

    And that's why I always insist that we use the cone of silence.

  9. Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... by bhcompy · · Score: 2

    The gun is mightier than the keyboard, my friend

  10. How convenient by ebunga · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Anonymous is a dangerous threat to national security. They can even listen in on phone calls on secure lines. We must have mandatory validated identification of all users of the Internet and an end to anonymity to protect our secret operations."

    1. Re:How convenient by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

      "Anonymous is a dangerous threat to national security. They can even listen in on phone calls on secure lines. We must have mandatory validated identification of all users of the Internet and an end to anonymity to protect our secret operations."

      Do you think if Anonymous didn't exist they would say, "Well, we don't really need any more extreme measures to keep the populace quiet and compliant, because Anonymous doesn't exist. We'll just be happy with the tools we have now. We're even thinking about stopping the warrantless surveillance."

      Was anonymous the cause of warrantless GPS? Warrantless surveillance? Total Information Awareness? Any of the other flagrant violations of the Fourth that have happened in the past decade?

      Hardly. Anonymous is the convenient excuse of the moment, not the core motive. The core motive is, and always has been, a desire to control the "dangerous" elements in society, for our own good, by "regretfully" taking away our liberty. I'll even grant them that it is a well intentioned assault on the very reasons this nation exists. They have been getting on with it because the general populace has not been well informed. Most of our society has been more concerned with protecting their hyper-indulged fat children from threats that are 99.999% imaginary than they are with things like free speech, largely because most of them have exactly nothing interesting to say.

      That is starting to change. The infringement of liberty is growing to become something that is no longer sufferable by ordinary people, despite their willingness to suffer. Anonymous is a symptom of our society reacting to authoritarian overreach -- not the cause of it.

  11. Good for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    In public, government is angry, vengeful, and "determined" to "fix" the issue. Behind the curtains, they are celebrating a new justification for yet even more revenue and yet even more power over the people.

    These situations are assets to the business of government, not liabilities.

    You're not in the business of government, are you?

  12. Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... by poetmatt · · Score: 2

    It's sure as hell not mightier than the public, though.

  13. Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... by eternaldoctorwho · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't know....I have a Model M.

  14. Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiots by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This just shows what a bunch of clueless morons Anonymous is.
    They perform a brilliant bit of counter-intel and gained an upper-hand by finding a way to exploit the FBI and eavesdrop on their conversations.

    And what do they do with this victory? Do they send the FBI tripping over itself on an internal mole-hunt by going to the media with a tiny bit of this info explained as "information leaked by a source within the FBI?". Do they patiently sit and gather more intel, maybe useful information to help them evade arrest or gather bits of public interest in other cases for later use?

    No, they broadcast it to the world with details on how they did it, all but going to the FBI and closing the weakness themselves.
    These jerkoffs have shown once and for all that they are just a bunch of egotistical little shits who are indeed just in it for the lulz and "street cred".
    I doubt we'll see anything come of Anonymous aside from more LOIC attacks, credit card thefts and web page vandalism.
    They've shown all the intelligence and finesse of a group of anarchistic thugs.

  15. Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... by shaitand · · Score: 2

    The military disagrees. That is why they invest so much is disinformation and digital propaganda campaigns. Type the right things on a keyboard in the right places and you can have thousands of people who don't even know you exist independently choose to use guns in a way that serves your agenda.

  16. Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    I understand the, sometimes essential, role of authoritarian revenge fantasies in the masturbatory process of a certain sort of person; but are you seriously suggesting that the overt use of extrajudicial violence is actually a sensible response to a group motivated by the position that the powers-that-be are unaccountable and deeply corrupt?

    There isn't the slightest question about where the 'real power' lies; but surely dealing with suspected violators of various computer crime laws, against which you have evidence, and toward which the public doesn't have much sympathy, should be about the easiest place to get the desired result and keep the moral high ground, no?

  17. Eavesdropping on phone calls: good or bad? by Kohath · · Score: 2, Informative

    When Anonymous does it: good. When News Corp does it: bad.

    Selective outrage certainly is a useful propaganda tool, isn't it?

    1. Re:Eavesdropping on phone calls: good or bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not about who's doing the eavesdropping it's about who is being eavesdropped on.

      In once case private individuals, in the other the government (or government agents).

    2. Re:Eavesdropping on phone calls: good or bad? by RazorSharp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a poor comparison. When Anonymous becomes a publicly traded company that poses as a legitimate media player, then it would make sense. No shit Anonymous is breaking the law, that's what they do and they're doing so for a cause (whether it's justified or not is irrelevant, they seem to believe in it).

      News Corp. eavesdropped on conversations for personal gain, oftentimes exploiting grieving families.

      Selective outrage is certainly useful for the logical thinker who doesn't compare apples and oranges.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  18. Project Mayhem by Droog57 · · Score: 2

    Love the big brass ones that these guys have. I don't agree with much of their agenda, but really have to admire their tenacity in the face of serious opposition. Impressive stunt.

    --
    "If the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Donny Rumsfeld
  19. All I Can Say by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is Hooray. What a dump for the Hoover's and Peel's plonkers.

    Secret policemen are the enemy of Democracy and Liberty. Freedom cannot be defended by means of surreptious authority.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:All I Can Say by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is Hooray. What a dump for the Hoover's and Peel's plonkers.

      Secret policemen are the enemy of Democracy and Liberty. Freedom cannot be defended by means of surreptious authority.

      "Secret Policemen"? The FBI and Scotland Yard are the moral, legal, and operational equivalents of the KGB and the Gestapo? Are you serious?

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    2. Re:All I Can Say by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No.

      They are moral, legal and operational equivalents of Inspector Javert.

      But they are on track to reach STASI equivalency, in th coming decade.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:All I Can Say by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's just "Stasi" -- it's not an acronym. (It's short for Staatssicherheit, which in turn is short for Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, which roughly translates to National Security Agency -- well, Ministry of State Security.)

    4. Re:All I Can Say by BoberFett · · Score: 2
    5. Re:All I Can Say by dcposch · · Score: 2

      "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence."

      That's the real story for me, and I find it disheartening. Some dudes from 4chan just hacked the emails, phone systems, and then simply sat in on a phone conference between the FBI and British police.

      I had the same reaction when I learned about the Wikileaks cables. 3 million people have access to the database? Many of those with 'secret' clearance? Unlimited downloads? Some kid downloads the _entire database_ logged by himself, on his work computer, without raising so much as a single eg. Nagios alert? Wait, no audit whatsover?? They literally discovered him because he bragged about it to his friends.

      It's doubly disheartening since the heads of intelligence in the free world used to be so badass. We all read about Bletchley Park during WWII, about Alan Turing, about the Enigma, about OXCART and HEXAGON during the Cold War. These used to be lean, incredibly focused organizations with large budgets; they used to attract the smartest people in the world, who dedicated their lives to these projects knowing that freedom and democracy were at stake.

      Today, our military and intelligence agencies seem to have devolved into a bureaucratic stupor. We layer one embarrassing mistake on top of another. Plenty of raw data on Osama bin Laden before 2001, for example, but no actual intel until far too late. He then proceeded to live in a big, comfortable house in the 'burbs in an ostensibly allied country, while we spent an epic amount of cash ransacking a different country and not finding him for a solid 10 years. Meanwhile, the CIA interrogated and tortured a German-Lebanese dude named Khalid el-Masri for several months at a "secret location" because they confused him with a different "el-Masri". Wikileaks showed that "CLASSIFIED", "SECRET" and "TOP SECRET" are a joke. And now, Anon drove the point home, repeatedly.

      It's triply disheartening because there _are_ intelligence agencies today that are lean, mean, and narrowly focused. They're just not ours. They're not anywhere that's free and democratic. And you can bet that when they sit in on a conference call between the FBI and Scotland yard, they don't run to Pastebin to brag about it afterward.

  20. And this is why they want to censor internet. by unity100 · · Score: 2

    imagine someone intercepting the calls of some industry execs doing shitty dealings with government and posting them online.

    imagine hollywood goons pushing government bureaucrats or representatives/senators to do shitty stuff for them for their expense in a backroom, in all the dirty, non politically correct language those backrooms tend to have, and post them online.

    imagine this happened before sopa was killed........ there wouldnt even be a day of protest needed to kill sopa.

    or, nuclear industry pressuring government to play with statistics to keep dangerous old plants running........ ..........

    see, this is why they want to censor internet. and, they would do this regardless of what we, as the people did. because, it was certain that, someone (anonymous or not, or even a single dutiful citizen or some repenting low level govt. bureaucrat) could post these online some day.

    thats why they have been running all kinds of schemes to censor internet. and how they would not stop if there wasnt anyone (leave aside anon) doing these. they NEED internet censored so such things can be averted.

    these stuff, should be happening through the hands of the government itself. transparency, remember? where is it ? NOWHERE. and those who attempt to provide that transparency, are now 'terrorists'. ........

    we are fighting a very battle for the soul of the internet, free speech, and transparency. and it is happening here and now. we should do everything in our power to prevent censorship, sopa, acta, pipa, schmogga, whatever. its a 'we should fight in the landing grounds, and in the hills' situation. we should never surrender.

    this is not the fight of anonymous. this is our fight, which we have not been fighting yet. we must fight it, to not lose what we hold dear ; internet.

  21. Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's sure as hell not mightier than the public, though.

    As long as double cheeseburgers are 99 cents, I don't think most of the public can be motivated to do much of anything.

  22. Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... by gtall · · Score: 2

    Evidience? Sources? Cites? Or does talking out of your ass feel good?

  23. Re:Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiot by AdrianKemp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They're apparently much smarter than you are.

    The FBI is what it is because it outwardly appears to operate effectively. If you can demonstrate well enough that it is not effective it will be dismantled either through staffing changes or actual full-on dismantling.

    You don't try to tie up the FBI's time, because it will just cost the tax payer more money. You throw egg in it's face as often as you possibly can until it's a laughing stock and must be replaced/removed in order to save face.

    Again, clearly much smarter than you

  24. Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... by w.hamra1987 · · Score: 2

    future guns are controlled by keyboards

    --
    my sig pwns your sig
  25. Tradecraft by invid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is poor tradecraft to reveal an adversary's weakness if you plan to continue to exploit it.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  26. Re:Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiot by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Better anarchistic thugs than authoritarian thugs.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  27. Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It amuses me how conspiracy theorists and other anti-government figures claim that current governments are always just one step away from martial law or fascism (or, more often, how they've already been there for centuries), about how they're gleefully abusing our rights, mistreating us on an inhumane scale, or the usual overused go-to phrase, "raping us all in the ass". They always say that the government are bloodthirsty, amoral, self-indulging quasi-human entities that wouldn't think twice about "disappearing" us to further their own political goals and how they're getting more and more brash in their actions, like they don't care what we think at all.

    And then they turn around and claim that "the public" saying mean things about them on a computer will somehow stop all this from happening. That a well-armed, apparently cartoonishly evil government would, for some as-yet-unexplained reason, suddenly give up if the public whines about them, and not, say, just start slaughtering all detractors and anyone else in their apartment complex/neighborhood as a means of controlling dissent. That writing strongly-worded (STRONGLY-worded, mind you) letters would stop the bombs and bullets headed towards the public and restore peace and tranquility and then Jesus would come back or something.

    And people wonder why it's so fun to troll places like these. Carry on! Suuuuure, the gun is mightier than the public, buddy! Keep on believing that your evil evil evil government will arbitrarily stop exactly short of your passive-aggressive revolution ideas!

  28. Re:Godwin==Orwell by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2

    You like hyperbole, eh?

    Please read about what the Schutzstaffel did, in real life, to a great many real people, instead of casually throwing around accusations of Naziism or would-be Nazi sympathizing. Equating the FBI and Scotland Yard with the SS is not only an insult to the victims of the SS, it's Peter crying wolf and will prevent warnings from being taken seriously when it really is time to start talking SS/Gestapo. This applies equally to parent and GP.

    Once you understand what the Nazis were responsible for, you'll understand that Godwin's Law is a short way of saying "I don't want to waste my time conversing with someone unwilling to see things in perspective without over the top hyperbole."

  29. Speaking only for me: by Hartree · · Score: 3, Funny

    "You are anonymous"

    I am not Anonymous.
    I'm not even a squad, let alone a Legion.
    It may look like I forgive.
    But really I just forget.
    Don't expect me because I'll probably oversleep.

  30. Re:Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiot by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Better anarchistic thugs than authoritarian thugs.

    No, not really. That's a false choice. How about "Neither"?

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  31. Re:Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiot by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or, it's brilliant.

    Let's say Anon managed to through some one-time gap (ie a sympathetic insider, perhaps) managed to get the login details to this one conference. It's meaningless, because they can't repeat the success.

    However, if they leak it:
    - heads roll at the FBI
    - everyone's walking on eggshells because of management fury
    - everyone's required to use full-secure protocols and resources for the stupidest trivial conversations
    - FBI still doesn't know who leaked it, so begins witchhunt which consumes resources, and makes everyone nervous.

    I think it's probably a one-off, parlayed into a fairly clever bit of system-attack.

    You know, like a single coordinated unrepeatable multiplane hijacking could theoretically cause an entire country to be consumed by paroxysms of paranoia for more than a decade, leading to absurd legislation, efficiency costs for hundreds of millions of people, as well as actual TRILLIONS of dollars of waste.

    Right?

    --
    -Styopa
  32. Re:Karma, line three by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2

    Maybe that's why the call was so boring.

    "Okay, Mike, get on the line with Martin from the Yard, just keep talking about boring shit for two hours... Uh, take this file, it's the legal briefing for case 345-12A. Read it out."

    "Are you serious?"

    "Yeah, some fucking hackers got the credentials for the conference call, we want to see what they'd do with the intel."

    "Fine, but you're buying donuts for the meeting on Friday."

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  33. Re:Godwin==Orwell by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

    I'd say most people these days don't have the slightest idea exactly how terrible real Nazis were.

    Or that any differences between the Nazis and us are purely cultural, and not inborn. Believe it or not, sixty years is not enough to for evolution to breed whatever caused WWII and the Holocaust out of the human genome.

    It can happen here, folks. You can be an idiot and pretend it can't, or you can remain vigilant, and make sure it doesn't. Yammering about "Godwin's Law" at every opportunity adds no signal to the conversation, only noise.