Slashdot Mirror
Details Of FBI Surveillance In Lulzsec Takedown Emerge
uigrad_2000 writes "Yesterday, we learned that one of the top members of LulzSec (Sabu) had been an FBI informant for almost 6 months, and that this confidant of the LulzSec leader 'anarchaos' had given the feds what they needed to take him down. More details have come out now, completing a picture of how the sting took place from start to finish. It turns out that even the server space given from Sabu to anarchaos storing the details of 30,000 credit cards (from the Stratfor hack) had been funded by the FBI."
I don't condole the activities of LulzSec, but fuck snitches. As one said by the great Capt Jack Sparrow: "The deepest circle of hell is reserved for betrayers and mutineers." If there was a hell, this asshole belongs there.
Set out code-words you can use to indicate that you're under coercion.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
This Hammond person is basically exactly who you'd expect him to be. There will be more. The amount of effort it took to catch him was considerable, and required an inside man. More people will follow this path. This problem cannot be solved this way.
It could be solved if the man had turned out to be duping everybody about his values and beliefs. It could've soured and destroyed his credibility and made it less likely that anybody would trust the motives of anybody else who tried to do things like this. And while I expect a smear campaign, I also expect the smear campaign to be obvious and easily rebutted.
The FBI is fighting an idea, and is under the mistaken impression they can shut it down by finding and arresting people. It won't happen.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
If Bradley Manning had revealed those secrets because someone had bribed him or for some other sort of personal gain, sure.
Though, I do not apply the term 'traitor' to this Sabu fellow. The FBI can bring a lot of pressure to bear and were highly motivated to solve this case. I wouldn't be surprised if his children were obliquely threatened with some sort of negative consequence should he not cooperate. So, just like I would not apply the label 'traitor' to a soldier who cracked under torture, I will not call Sabu a traitor. I do not think highly of him, but a traitor he is not.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
You have to remember the deals the police make are very much a "You help us and get results or all bets are off." So if you agree to turn CI and then tip all your mates off, well they are going to figure it out. Mysteriously everyone disappears after you talk to them and so on. Then you get no deal.
Remember the reason people do this is to get a better deal for themselves. The prosecution says "We've got X evidence on you which can result in Y different charges giving you Z time in prison. However cooperate with us and we'll drop/reduce some charges and you'll spend less time in prison." It is a carrot and stick situation. They offer you a reduced (or sometimes even eliminated, but that's rare) sentence if you help them.
The people who cooperate do so willingly. Some don't, they tell them to fuck off. That was a big thing with the original mob back in the day, the Omerta, the code of silence. When someone got caught they wouldn't say a thing, they'd take the fall. Made the organization hard to break up. However many others do. People are often self interested, and criminals often even more so. So they'll cooperate willingly to get themselves a better deal.
While sympathetic to the fact that Sabu's children may have influenced his decision, he didn't understand how Sabu could have put his family at risk in the first place. "Why would you get involved with something like this if you had kids that relied on you?" he asked. "If I had kids I would get a 'responsible' job/hobby."
It appears that his children and their future were used against him to coerce him into snitching on LulzSec.
... you know ... he's a conflicted man with an internal conflict between morals and money. Sabu could have very much so been in a similar position.
... well ... that doesn't mean the situation is completely black and white.
It appears that Sabu's children were an exploited liability. Would you risk your loved ones for your ideals? Or is your answer still simply and obviously "fuck snitches"?
And since you're quoting imaginary Disney characters, I'll remind you <Scarface spoiler alert> of the scene in Scarface where they're going to blow up a car of a politician's family in order to stop legislation but at the last moment Scarface realizes there are children in the vehicle and instead shoots the bomber in the face? Yeah, Scarface is a traitor at that point but
Please note, this Sabu character appears to be an unsavory character with delusions of grandeur who maybe should have his children taken away from him anyway but
My work here is dung.
At least now I can go after them. Let me call the FBI to start an investigation... Wait... who are the "good guys" again? Can I really ask the authorities to prosecute themselves? And then the rest of the world wonders why some are drawn to vigilante justice.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Why would Wikileaks' credibility be undermined? Wikileaks' primary purpose is to publish what is leaked to them, and they did just that in this case:
WikiLeaks believes that best way to truly determine if a story is authentic, is not just our expertise, but to provide the full source document to the broader community - and particularly the community of interest around the document ... Journalists and governments are often duped by forged documents. It is hard for most reporters to outsmart the skill of intelligence agency frauds. WikiLeaks, by bringing the collective wisdoms and experiences of thousands to politically important documents will unmask frauds like never before ... How does WikiLeaks test document authenticity?
LulzSec (much like Anonymous) and other Hacktivists have high minded goals about online security and privacy. But their behavior is of the most misguided sort. To bring about change you must win the hearts and minds of the public. LulzSec did neither. They may have entertained, but the generally just ticked a lot of people off and gave hackers everywhere a bad name. Remember, the average voter is not a geek/hacker and does not find LulzSec's work particularly "Lulzy"
~theCzar
The guys overseas in the War hurt *themselves* with their dishonorable treatment of civilians and prisoners of war. Bradley Manning just made their mistakes visible to the public. True soldiers should applaud his stand for justice.
Manning took the same oath that everyone entering the military takes, to defend the Constitution of the United States.
Part of every soldier's training states that if you see an officer or other members of your squad, platoon, battalion, or even Joe Random Officer committing crimes, treason, or acts unbecoming of an officer or enlisted man of the United States military, you are to take the appropriate action.
I feel he took most of the appropriate action. He saw how the war in Afghanistan was being handled, and how civilian casualties and torture of prisoners was condoned by those all the way up the CoC. He also saw how our allies were smoking up before patrols and putting the lives of every single American soldier they were near at risk.
Manning did the right thing. In hindsight, he probably shouldn't have turned the data dump over to someone like Asange, but he didn't seem aware of anything other than "Wikileaks is a safe place to get the word out and not have the data suppressed."
The response from the military and the government has been absolutely deplorable.
Manning's oath was to protect the Constitution, not American Imperialism.