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."

Comments

Traitors

[Lordgenome]

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.

Re:Traitors

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth be known, he might not have been a snitch. The feds have a penchant for setting up stings and luring morons into committing crimes that they might otherwise never have thought of. This guy may have actually instigated the whole thing at FBI request.

Re:Traitors

[Crasoose]

In the government we call them whistle blowers. Not exactly the same, but It's something to think about.

Re:Traitors

[Anonymous Coward]

He was dox'd by members of his own group before the FBI even started keeping tabs on him. They ousted one of their own before the whole thing even really got rolling, the feds were just paying attention is all.

Re:Traitors

[magamiako1]

So what you're saying is you don't like when people blow the whistle on shit they know is illegal/wrong?

Re:Traitors

[registrations_suck]

...but fuck snitches....

So, if a friend of mine murders your , robs your house, kills your dog, trashes your car, or other such things, and then tells me about it, I should just keep my mouth shut. Got it.

Re:Traitors

[Anrego]

I personally think there is a difference between being involved in an organization and:

- seeing something you wern't expecting going in and disagree with to such a degree that you are compelled to reveal it (what I consider a whistle blower)
- turning on your friends / colleagues not on ethical grounds, but to save your own ass

The first one I consider a very gray area and really don't know how I feel about it. The second are definitely scum.

Re:Traitors

[Omnifarious]

I wouldn't call him a traitor. You don't know what kind of pressure the FBI put on him to turn after they caught him. While I do not have a lot of respect for people who crack under that sort of thing, neither do I bear them a lot of animosity. Nobody really knows what they will do in a situation like that until it happens to them.

Re:Traitors

[Anonymous Coward]

The "friends / colleagues" weren't collecting food for orphans, they were stealing people's financial futures. Someone who's involved in such crimes was already scum before they turned in their co-criminals, turning snitch means they're still the same scum but scum that happened to turn out useful to society in general.

Re:Traitors

[Brannoncyll]

So what you're saying is you don't like when people blow the whistle on shit they know is illegal/wrong?

You're not a whistle-blower if you are the head of a resistance movement (or whatever) and sell out - you are a traitor. Whistle-blowers are generally people working for organisations that are doing bad things and trying to cover it up who, on moral grounds, release the information for the public good. For example Vidkun Quisling was certainly *not* a 'whistle-blower'!

Re:Traitors

[DaveV1.0]

I bet you would be singing a different tune if the police needed leads on the people who gang raped your mother, wife, and daughter.

Re:Traitors

[theshowmecanuck]

Yeah heaven forbid someone turn in a murderer or meth dealer. They'd just be fucking snitches. [end_of_sarcasm] What if someone turned in their friend who just murdered your mother? Would you still be pissed off at that person for being a snitch? IMO that was a dumb statement you just made. Or what in your opinion does it mean to do the right thing? Not so cut and dried is it?... or if you think it is, you either lack perspective or very well may be a sociopath. There are whole neighbourhoods filled with crime and squalor because they think being a snitch if worse than the criminals they turn. Those neighbourhoods deserve the shit they live in. The whole concept that you are a horrible snitch for turning in a law breaker is absurd. And to paint everyone who does it with the same brush is worse. It does a disservice to those who whistle blow and other forms of fighting for just causes (and even then calling someone a snitch or a whistle blower is just the perspective one has on whose cause they believe is just).

Re:Traitors

[gl4ss]

The "friends / colleagues" weren't collecting food for orphans, they were stealing people's financial futures. Someone who's involved in such crimes was already scum before they turned in their co-criminals, turning snitch means they're still the same scum but scum that happened to turn out useful to society in general.

I thought we were talking about lulzsec and not bankers and people bailing them out?

now: who's financial future did lulzsec steal? yours? someone who's cc they had? WHO? someone who got fired because of them??

Re:Traitors

[Oswald McWeany]

According to another article at the bottom- he made a couple of mistakes- one- he once logged into a chat directly without anonymising his IP. Two- he registerd a domain using his real name- and quickly changed it after noticing what he had done.

He was doxed by members of his own team- but looks like the FBI would have caught him anyway.

Re:Traitors

[flyingsquid]

Sabu's real name is Hector Xavier Monsegur. He's an unemployed father caring for two children, so you can see the position the FBI had him in. Work with us and help us take down Lulzsec, and we'll make this easy. You'll get away with a minimum of jail time, you'll get to go back to your kids, and maybe we can help find you a job working on the other side in computer security. Fight us, and we can send you away for a long time, you'll lose custody of your kids, and then what happens to them? It's not clear where the mother is in all of this; she's described as his girlfriend but they weren't living together. At the risk of speculating, I'd say it raises some huge red flags when a mother either doesn't want her kids to live with her, or it's somehow better to have an unemployed hacker raise the kids. Maybe having the mother raise the kids instead of him wasn't an option, then.

That was basically the situation they had him in. Betray your fellow hackers, or lose your kids. It's a cruel choice, but ultimately he's the one responsible for making the kids a pawn in this game. Nobody forced him to break the law in the first place. The FBI agents, on the other hand, have to enforce the law of the land. They don't have the option of saying, "yeah he broke the law and hacked some websites, but he's got kids so we'll let him off with a stern warning". Once they had evidence that he'd broken the law, they have to pursue a case even if the kids become casualties. Offering Monsegur this way out is just about the only act of mercy they are allowed. He made a poor choice as a parent when he chose to engage in illegal activities while acting as the caretaker for two children. That's not to say that he shouldn't have been an online activist, but he could have found a way to do so in a responsible fashion that didn't pose the risk of the kids losing their father.

Re:Traitors

[GmExtremacy]

The fact that you would believe differently than you do now if you were in a different situation does not mean that your current views are wrong.

I can apply that logic to you, or anyone. In fact, it even applies to the guy you just replied to. "I bet you would be singing a different tune if the police needed leads on the people who gang raped your mother, wife, and daughter." The guy in your scenario would believe differently if that didn't happen to him. Therefore, his views are wrong.

I wish people would stop spouting this "if you were in a different situation..." nonsense.

Re:Traitors

[flyingsquid]

The other issue is that you're not a whistleblower unless the information you reveal actually provides evidence of wrongdoing. Leaking the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, for instance, is clearly whistleblowing and should be protected. But when Manning released gun camera footage of an Apache helicopter gunship slaughtering Iraqi reporters, is that whistleblowing? If you watch that movie the whole way through, it's clear that the reporters were embedded with insurgents (an RPG is clearly visible on one of the men, which is not something a civilian would carry around) and it's a horrific case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time in an active battlefield. Maybe at some level releasing that stuff is good for the public, to give us an idea of the awful costs of war- the reporters and civilians killed, and the helicopter pilots who have to live for the rest of their lives knowing they did that- but it's not evidence of illegal or unethical activity. Much of the remaining stuff released by manning, for example the idea that some diplomats think that Medvedev is "Robin to Putin's Batman" is an interesting insight into the workings of our government, but not really necessary for us to evaluate our government. So how is that whistleblowing?

I'm all in favor of whistleblowing, the issue I have is that releasing people's private communications, regardless of whether they reveal unethical behaviour or not, isn't really whistleblowing.

Re:Traitors

[magamiako1]

He didn't sell out. His family was threatened.

He made a mistake.

Re:Traitors

[GmExtremacy]

Yeah heaven forbid someone turn in a murderer or meth dealer.

Heaven forbid the latter since I think all drugs should be legal (and by extension, the selling of drugs).

Also, this comment applies to your comment as well, since you used the same logic.

Re:Traitors

[Hoi Polloi]

Seeing as he had two kids and was already unemployed they probably had lots of leverage on him. "Want to see your kids grow up?"

Re:Traitors

[Brannoncyll]

He didn't sell out. His family was threatened. He made a mistake.

Out of interest, in what way were his family threatened? He sold out for a reduced jail sentence. Its still a betrayal, no matter what way you look at it, and whether you agree or not. I probably would have done the same thing.

Re:Traitors

[Lordgenome]

Nobody forced him to break the law in the first place.

Exactly, he knew what risks he was taking when he decided to pull and organize all the stunts LulzSec put together. Should others suffer because of his choice? No. He should have been a man and accepted the fact that he did the crime and was caught, so he should suffer. Instead, he compromised dozens of others in his quest for personal relief. Justify it any way you want, he still screwed over others to protect himself. He is a selfish idiot that should have never risked his family in the first place to get Lulz, but he did, that is HIS bad. It was dumb of the rest of Anon to trust him as well, but they did not choose to betray him, it's the other way around.

Re:Traitors

[Anonymous Coward]

That wasn't an RPG, that was the camera being carried on the reporter's shoulder. They made no attempt to get any "ground truth" and just opened fire on people who hadn't been seen in combat, just nearby. There was no proof they were embedded with insurgents. They also fired on a van that stopped to aid casualties, a violation of US rules of engagement and international law. Then they took the time to joke about it, a truly sleazy move.

Maybe weakly defensible from the copter crew's position but the public had a right to see how frivolously the war was being run. To break the veneer of a squeaky clean "god bless our troops" war? That is whistleblowing.

Re:Traitors

[Chakra5]

It's not a zero sum game

Bankers may earn contempt without making any behavior that attacks them golden.

Re:Traitors

[cavreader]

After the people released the edited and highly produced "Collateral Murder" version of that particular incident they ruined their credibility as people just trying to get the "truth" out. Government spin is attacked and labeled as criminal but apparently it's OK if you are supporting your own biased viewpoint. Unfortunately people do get killed in wars and everything you mentioned was true. There were ground troops 3 blocks away engaged with armed militants at the time. The copter was doing forward reconnaissance in support of those ground troops. There was even audio of the helicopter pilots getting permission to fire from their commanders who were in turn being advised by JAG lawyers assigned to the group.

Re:Traitors

[DaveV1.0]

The fact that he would want people to snitch if it helped catch those that hurt him or his family makes him a hypocrite and does make his current view wrong.

I wish people like you would stop justifying assholes like the GGP.

Re:Traitors

[jesseck]

You've never experienced combat, have you?

Re:Traitors

[Brian Feldman]

Really? I wouldn't have done the same thing in his position -- but that's because I have a little something notably almost absent from the modern world: ethics.

Re:Traitors

[g0bshiTe]

Luring morons into committing crimes is called entrapment.

Re:Traitors

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me like he is a useless piece of shit. Why didn't he get a job? Not only is he an idiot, he is living off other people's taxes. And about the rest of the "hackers", good riddance. I can't imagine how anybody would feel the least bit of sympathy towards these retards. What did they think was going to happen?

--
Marcan

Re:Traitors

[GmExtremacy]

The fact that he would want people to snitch if it helped catch those that hurt him or his family makes him a hypocrite and does make his current view wrong.

No, no it doesn't. That's called bias.

As I said, your logic can be applied to literally anyone (even you). If you were in his situation, you'd agree with him. Therefore, all of your arguments are completely incorrect. I can use your logic to say that absolutely anyone who would believe something else if they were in a different situation than they are now (probably many people) is wrong. Hell, you might want to be the judge, jury, and executioner of the accused murderer of your family, but does that mean it should be allowed (you could use the argument that anyone who says that you shouldn't be allowed to do so would feel differently if they were in your situation)?

I believe it's nonsense that can be applied to any person in existence.

makes him a hypocrite

If this is what you're saying makes him wrong, then this is just the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

I wish people like you would stop justifying assholes like the GGP.

Yes, they're factually wrong and you're 100% right.

Re:Traitors

[rot26]

Please don't suggest that he can't handle the truth.

Re:Traitors

[Brannoncyll]

Really? I wouldn't have done the same thing in his position -- but that's because I have a little something notably almost absent from the modern world: ethics.

Who expects honour amongst thieves? Seriously though, I'm sure most people, when faced with the option of betraying some guys they had never met or else getting thrown in jail (worse, an American jail) for essentially eternity, would choose the former. These people aren't martyrs or zealots.

Re:Traitors

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that the reason Lulzsec stole cc numbers was because the numbers let them use other people's credit instead of their own? What, did you think they were doing it because it was kewl and rebellious? I didn't realize that I had to spell it out for you that when you max out other people's credit cards it can damage their credit ratings in ways that take decades to fix, even if a bank or online retailer later admits to the breach that let the cc#'s out.

Are you really defending Lulzsec here?

Re:Traitors

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, they "stole" the credit card numbers because they stole all a huge amount of internal information from Stratfor. The CC numbers just came along for the ride. It was not the goal of the breach in any way.

Re:Traitors

[zzsmirkzz]

So, if a friend of mine murders your , robs your house, kills your dog, trashes your car, or other such things, and then tells me about it, I should just keep my mouth shut. Got it.

For all things except Murder and Treason - that is correct. For Murder and Treason, it is up to you who holds more of your allegiance, your country, or your friend/family/Siamese-twin.

Re:Traitors

[radtea]

There were ground troops 3 blocks away engaged with armed militants at the time.

Which justifies them opening fire on the good samaritans who stopped to aid their first victims how?

The copter was doing forward reconnaissance in support of those ground troops.

Which justifies them opening fire on the good samaritans who stopped to aid their first victims how?

There was even audio of the helicopter pilots getting permission to fire from their commanders who were in turn being advised by JAG lawyers assigned to the group.

Which justifies them opening fire on the good samaritans who stopped to aid their first victims how?

The rules of war are very, very clear on this: civilians aiding the wounded are not to be fired upon.

Note that I am not talking about the original attack. I am not talking about all the cases where the use of deadly force conformed to the rules of engagement the helicopter crew were operating under. If you reply to justify those attacks as if I was arguing about them it will just show you are an idiot.

I am specifically and only asking about the illegal attack on the good samaritans who came to the aid of the victims of the previous, legal attack.

How do you justify that attack on those good samaritans, who were taking their kids to their music lessons and happened upon dying people in the road?

Re:Traitors

[zzsmirkzz]

yeah heaven forbid someone turn in a murderer or meth dealer. They'd just be fucking snitches.

Let's get one thing straight and that is the definition of a snitch which I believe to be very different than a tattle-tale. If you witness a stranger or acquaintance commit a crime and you report it, you are not a snitch, you are a responsible citizen.

If you witness a friend, family-member, partner or anyone else who you've established a basis of trust with commit a crime* and you report it, you probably could be considered a snitch. The fact you may never have agreed to be involved in any illegal activity and your knowledge now implicates you and it is their fault that you know (not yours) makes it a gray area

If you partner with one or more people in a criminal enterprise, knowing full well what everyone is doing is illegal and you rat on them, rather than staying silent, you are a snitch. The lowest of the low, the worst form of scum imaginable and you deserve anything you receive in return as punishment (but only you, people you know should not be included).

* Murder and treason excluded.

Re:Traitors

[Uberbah]

Radtea shredded your jinjoistic apologism, but left this one out:

After the people released the edited and highly produced "Collateral Murder"

And released a full version of the video as well. Which does nothing to change the story. This isn't one of Brietbart's edit jobs.

Why so dishonest, cavreader?

Re:Traitors

[theNAM666]

As I point out above, this guy is unlikely to remain anonymous, and he is likely to face far worse consequences from the hacking community, than from the Police. All 100% deserved.

Re:Traitors

[theNAM666]

It's hardly the same, Sherlock.

Re:Traitors

[Beerdood]

How did you get modded insightful with that blatant strawman? There's a huge difference between "reporting a crime" and "working with authorities to prosecute people doing the same thing you did". Turning in a meth dealer? Not a big deal. You're a meth dealer and you're squealing on your partner? Well now you're a traitor or backstabber or a betrayer or whatever you want to call it. That's the entire point here.

This wouldn't be news if the story was about so-and-so helps authorities with a bust. What makes it interesting, is that the one doing the snitching is the one that basically ran the organization! You might see Lulzsec or Anon as troublemakers or rabble-rousers, but they seem themselves as providing some sort of justice or balance. Especially the higher ups - they're doing this on principle, they see themselves as the batmans and robin hoods of the internet, causing trouble for a better tomorrow (or whatever). And *THAT* is what makes this interesting, is that one of the top members here would sacrifice his own principles and ideals, and screw his friends (friends?) for personal gain (or rather, to save his own ass). Or that maybe we'd do the same thing given the chance. I'm not sure how you can't see the difference between reporting a crime, and snitching on your partner for committing a crime despite partaking in the exact same crime yourself

Re:Traitors

[theNAM666]

Oh good fucking grief. We're talking an anarchist hacking group here, not drug dealers and murders. Go get a grip.

Mod parent "overrated."

Re:Traitors

[theNAM666]

>They don't have the option of saying, "yeah he broke the law and hacked some websites,

They don't? Sure they do. How long have you worked for the Department of Justice?

Federal prosecutors have a great deal of leeway and discretion, and you're fucking kidding me if you think the DoJ idiots (who understand -20% of the technical issues) we're running full speed to score this touchdown, no questions asked about who they injured. Moral? Give the guy a break? You've GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING. Prosecutors like hurting people, legally.

Re:Traitors

[Vintermann]

> is clearly whistleblowing and should be protected. But when Manning released gun camera footage of an Apache helicopter gunship slaughtering Iraqi reporters, is that whistleblowing?

Yes, absolutely. The official story of the US government was that "There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force", and the 9 dead were spoken of as "insurgents". Actually, two of the dead were Reuters journalists, and two more were random passerbys who tried to help the wounded. Targetting people who are trying to save the wounded is a war crime. It unquestionably happened.

It's so routine that occupying armies lies about incidents like these, that you may think it isn't a big deal. It is. It was a coverup, and Manning was right to expose it.

Re:Traitors

[DaveV1.0]

I am in the situation the same situation he is in now and I do not agree with him, therefore you are wrong. I think the whole "don't snitch" thing is wrong now and would in the hypothetical situation I presented. And, it is the same situation you say he would change his position. He is 100% wrong, and so are you.

Re:Traitors

[Chas]

Yep. Hammond belongs there all right.

He started a brawl at a gay pride parade in Chicago in 2004 by going after a heckler. He wound up turning over a video of the event so the authorities could use it to identify and charge others. Even after he said he wouldn't.

Re:Traitors

[cavreader]

The full unedited video was released after the edited one. They practically ran a global advertising campaign to draw attention to the edited version. The edited version was used to support a certain view point about the specific incident and the war in general. People who have already made up their mind on a subject will use the first piece of evidence they find to justify their opinion and ignore anything that might contradict their beliefs. Also, ask yourself why they created an edited version in the first place if the truth was self evident in the video?

Re:Traitors

[theshowmecanuck]

Oh anarchists are good guys and not just as self centred and ideologically driven as to rival any other fanatics out there. I didn't know that. Sure keep drinking the cool aid. Fanatics are fanatics. I have no use for any of them regardless of their stripe. And when these guys steal other people's credit cards, they are then felons as well. There needs to be some way to modify the castle doctrine to apply to people who steal credit card numbers online as well.

Re:Traitors

[GmExtremacy]

I am in the situation the same situation he is in now and I do not agree with him, therefore you are wrong.

Wrong about what? I never said you need to be in a different situation than him to disagree (though you seem to think it indicates that someone is wrong if they aren't in the exact same situation that another person is). I only said that the fact that you would feel differently if you were in a different situation doesn't mean you're wrong.

If you were in a different situation (one of my choosing), you'd feel differently (my assumption, just like yours was an assumption). Therefore, you're wrong.

I don't get it. What evidence do you have that the fact that someone feeling differently if they were in a different situation than they are now means they're wrong? And wrong by whose standards? Why are they an authority on this subject? "Don't snitch" is a mere preference.

I thought you would have seen what I was talking about by now, but since you didn't, I can use the same logic to "prove" that 1 + 1 does not equal 2.

Imagine someone believes that 1 + 1 = 2. Someone else does not agree with them, and insists that it is 3. The person who thinks that 1 + 1 = 3 suggests that the other person would believe that it is 3 if they were in the same situation (whatever that situation is) than them. That person then concludes that the person who thinks that 1 + 1 = 2 is wrong solely based on this reason.

Do you think that's valid logic? You're saying that someone's conclusion is wrong because they might believe something else if they were in a different situation. How can this possibly be anything but a non sequitur?

Re:Traitors

[xevioso]

I don't understand this attitude.

1) Person A commits a murder, for example.
2) Person A's friend, Person B, goes to the police to report person A, thus betraying him.
3) Somehow Person B is supposed to wind up in Hell?

Um, it is GOOD that we have people who inform the police when crimes are committed. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If someone breaks into my house and my neighbor sees it, I would hope my neighbor would provide a description, as I would for them. Is this not the moral thing to do?

Re:Traitors

[theNAM666]

I said they weren't drug dealers and murderers, that there's no equivalence, not that they were good guys. Credit card fraud is not bloody murder. Again, get a grip.

Re:Traitors

[Lordgenome]

"You're running around in ski masks blowing things up, what did you think was going to happen?!!" - Jack (Fight Club)

Re:Traitors

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I wouldn't have done the same thing in his position -- but that's because I have a little something notably almost absent from the modern world: ethics.

Right, I don't believe you. Talk is cheap; it's easy to say you would not do the same thing in his position.

Re:Traitors

[lennier]

You're not a whistle-blower if you are the head of a resistance movement (or whatever) and sell out - you are a traitor.

Or maybe both. What if the "resistance movement" happens to be doing war crimes or terror attacks against civilians, and you decide you just don't like it anymore?

Turns out that seems to happen surprisingly often in the real world. The IRA, the PLO, Taliban, Hamas... all of these are "resistance movemements" from one perspective and "terror gangs" from another. The enemy of my enemy is likely to be just as much of a bastard, because nice guys don't win wars, and civil wars aren't nice to begin with. So where exactly should the moral high ground of "treason" vs "whistleblowing" lie? It's not always clear-cut at all.

If I were a member of Anonymous, I think I'd become sickened by their random-drive-by-vandalism-for-lulz tactics after a while, with or without the FBI holding my children hostage. But maybe that's just me.

Re:Traitors

[lennier]

an Apache helicopter gunship slaughtering Iraqi reporters...,it's not evidence of illegal or unethical activity.

If shooting civilians who try to rescue the wounded is indeed neither illegal nor unethical, then I think we need to reevaluate our definitions of law and ethics.

And yes, this kind of messed-up stuff happens in wars, which is precisely why we shouldn't do wars.

Re:Traitors

[lennier]

1) Person A commits a murder, for example.
2) Person A's friend, Person B, goes to the police to report person A, thus betraying him.
3) Somehow Person B is supposed to wind up in Hell?

I think the appropriate lesson to be drawn is that Dante Alighieri's Italy, in which he had been a political player, basically had the moral compass of today's Mafia (loyalty above morality), and Dante's screwed up worldview predictably appeared in his fiction. We know better today, or we ought to.

Re:Traitors

[cavreader]

Maybe reporters need to stop embedding themselves in groups known for violence. The reporters were in a group of people that included some armed people. They voluntarily put themselves in harms way. Carrying a telephoto lens that resembles a possible RPG is also just asking for trouble. How do you determine civilians from insurgents in the middle east? They wear no uniforms and regularly launch their attacks hiding behind civilians for cover. The children that were in the van were not visible to the Apache pilots and they were collected and immediately taking to US medical facilities to treat their injuries. The plain fact is that the "resistance" groups are responsible for more civilian deaths because they use human shields and really don't give a shit when non-combatants get killed. They use civilian deaths to justify their actions and propaganda. The most egregious examples are Hamas and Hezbollah because they use schools, hospitals, and Mosques to stage and launch their attacks from. Every militant group in the middle east does the same thing and the fanatic anti-war groups never acknowledge this fact.

Re:Traitors

[MarkvW]

I experienced Combat. Vic Morrow and Rick Jason were really good. I was really impressed by the guy who played Kirby, also.

I can hear the theme song too . . .

Re:Traitors

[mjwx]

As one said by the great Capt Jack Sparrow: "The deepest circle of hell is reserved for betrayers and mutineers."

Am I the only one who thinks it's really sad that people think that quote came from a bad fictional character in a bad fictional movie rather then from the Divine Comedies and the mythology it was based on.

Re:Traitors

[theshowmecanuck]

The op was talking about how snitches were bad. Blanket statement. Blanket answer applies. Get a grip yourself.

Re:Traitors

[Anonymous Coward]

In the government we call them whistle blowers.
Not exactly the same, but It's something to think about.

No, we don't, and the term "whistle blower" is not a government-specific term.
An informant is someone willfully involved in criminal activity, a whistleblower is not. An informant cooperates in exchange for personal gain (such as immunity or reduced charges), a whistleblower is someone who reports a crime out of a sense of moral indignation.
 

Re:Traitors

[theNAM666]

He said particularly:
>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.

His comment is clearly made within the discursive comment of this incident with LulzSec. While he may indeed intent to be making a blanket statement, or believe all snitches in all contexts are reprehensible, it cannot be logically ascertained from the statements alone. Equally the popular culture quote from the Sparrow refers to betrayers and mutineers, those who clearly violate standards of moral obligation -- obligations which are considered binding by some moral law.

At which point, one begins to wondered if you are a Canuck or a Canard. In any case, your grasp is too slippery to hoist by any petard, yours or not, and so I renew my request that you thrust your hand into something more solid, such as sand.

Re:Traitors

[gl4ss]

You do realize that the reason Lulzsec stole cc numbers was because the numbers let them use other people's credit instead of their own? What, did you think they were doing it because it was kewl and rebellious? I didn't realize that I had to spell it out for you that when you max out other people's credit cards it can damage their credit ratings in ways that take decades to fix, even if a bank or online retailer later admits to the breach that let the cc#'s out.

Are you really defending Lulzsec here?

the question remains, who's money they stole with the cc numbers? surely someone would have come forward as a lulzsec victim?(because in the chatlog in the article they're discussing using the cc's to release a leak, fully aware that the charges will get disputed).
you do realize that just having other peoples credit card numbers and info doesn't actually make a good way to make money due to number of things? is there some proof they were laundering the cc's to bitcoins, for example? how about you fucking go and read the material? did they bust them swimming in east-european mafia cash? no?

now wtf is it with anon c's condemning anyone saying that lulzsec was lulzy?
they published their antics quite widely. any site they hacked could have been hacked already before them by a number of other hackers(crackers if you got grade Asshole in terminology), that was good shit and the publicity was lulzy as hell.

"Are you really defending Stratfor here?"

Re:Traitors

[gl4ss]

I hate to reply to myself(well, I don't) but..

The CC's should NEVER HAVE BEEN on the server in the first place. Stratfor was breaking their payment processor agreements by keeping record of them! they were breaking a number of things by having those.

Re:Traitors

[CarbonShell]

No, murder is clear. If you condone it, you support it.

Treason on the other hand is different for you must ask yourself, are you a patriot or a nationalist?
Contrary to popular (US) perception, it usually does not mean what you think it means.
* a patriot thinks people before nation (i.e. government)
Hence a patriot would do what is right for the people even if it means that a new nation is needed.
* a nationalist thinks nation before people
What the nation says is more important then what the people want.
This is usally what the people in the US and other countries think of when they call themselves 'patriots'.

So it depends on who you are committing treason against and what your beliefs are.
f.i. if you are a patriot, actions against your own nation (remember it means government here) are not treason.

Re:Traitors

[xenobyte]

He didn't sell out. His family was threatened.

He made a mistake.

Out of interest, in what way were his family threatened? He sold out for a reduced jail sentence. Its still a betrayal, no matter what way you look at it, and whether you agree or not. I probably would have done the same thing.

Read TFA... He sold out because the FBI lied to him and told him that they could make sure he'd never see his family again, at least while he was in prison.

In reality the FBI does not have any power over what happens after sentencing. They can make recommendations to the DA's office, and the DA can present it at the trial and the judge can take that into consideration when doing the sentencing, but it's highly unlikely that the judge would include anything about family visitation rights in the verdict in a case about simple hacking.

Re:Traitors

[strikethree]

So, if a friend of mine murders your , robs your house, kills your dog, trashes your car, or other such things, and then tells me about it, I should just keep my mouth shut. Got it.

You misunderstand the concept. If you and your friend do those things to me TOGETHER, then yes, you are expected to keep your mouth shut from my point of view (as the victim). If you were not part of it then there are no such expectations.

ROFLMAO, captcha is "aiding". how beautifully appropriate.

Re:Traitors

[Uberbah]

Why ask why you would trim 20 minutes of footage to the parts where actual action actually happens? Do you get on your nightly news every time they show snippets of a politicians speech, instead of the whole 30 minute presentation?

Or are you making an argument of convenience, since again this was not a Brietbart hit piece where footage was spliced in?

Re:Traitors

[cavreader]

If the point was to uncover the entire truth of the incident it would have been released as is without any editing. Your news footage analogy doesn't apply because they have a defined time span in which to present as much news as possible within that time span. The "Collateral Murder" video was edited to purposely show only those events that supported a certain viewpoint and party line. In fact the release of the all the data has been stage managed to make sure certain viewpoints are supported while any information that might contradict their position was purposely excluded or released at a later date. I also still don't know why Wikileaks needed millions of dollars just to post the data online. Sites like Wikileaks are marketed as a place where people can upload data anonymously. Wikileaks should have posted the information the same way they obtained it but instead they chose to politicize the release. Assange even tried to dictate conditions to the news services like he owned the data. My argument is not about the contents of the video or the war but I have my own viewpoint just like anyone else. What I am arguing against is the way the information was released to the general public.

Re:Traitors

[randyleepublic]

No, you should wait until you are in a bunch of trouble, then use that information about your friend as a bargaining chip to get yourself out of trouble. What kind of lame snitch informs just because somebody did something immoral?

Re:Traitors

[Uberbah]

If the point was to uncover the entire truth of the incident it would have been released as is without any editing.

I see you went on with the world salad without ever mentioning how, in fact the edited video in any way distorted actual events. That means you aren't making an argument based on having a 'there there', but complaining for the sake of complaining.

And again, you're continuing to harp on this point long after the full clip was released.

Your news footage analogy doesn't apply

Just because you find it inconvenient to your beef with Wikileaks doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Clips are routinely edited for length, to cut out 15 minutes of (in this case) a helicopter flying in circles with nothing happening.

The "Collateral Murder" video was edited to purposely show only those events that supported a certain viewpoint and party line. In fact the release of the all the data has been stage managed to make sure certain viewpoints are supported while any information that might contradict their position was purposely excluded or released at a later date.

Still not showing how the video was unfairly edited.

Wikileaks should have posted the information the same way they obtained it but instead they chose to politicize the release.

Political news is political: shocking news at 11.

In fact the release of the all the data has been stage managed to make sure certain viewpoints are supported while any information that might contradict their position was purposely excluded or released at a later date.

Still not showing how the data was unfairly edited. And this "viewpoint" stuff sounds like the same crap that was said about Fahrenheit 911 - as if it wasn't enough having virtually all print and broadcast media in lockstep support of the war, if you were looking for "balance". And now we're seeing the same story repeated with Iran.

I also still don't know why Wikileaks needed millions of dollars just to post the data online.

Lets see: staff costs, travel costs, legal costs, server costs, dealing with embarrassed western powers messing with your financing costs. But you knew that already.

Assange even tried to dictate conditions to the news services like he owned the data.

In return for exclusivity...um, yeah? You don't think that sources regularly make deals with media organizations on such terms? Sounds like another selective argument of convenience.

What I am arguing against is the way the information was released to the general public.

Still not showing how the video was unfairly edited.

Re:Traitors

[cavreader]

"Still not showing how the video was unfairly edited."

Just they fact it was edited in the first place before release is the point moron. It should have been posted exactly the way they received it. Instead they released the edited version before the unedited version to make sure their interpretation was seen first. And of course people such as yourself stopped thinking for themselves a long time ago and instead have emerged yourself in partisan group think who believe the first thing they see as long as it supports their preconceived point of view and bias.

"In return for exclusivity...um, yeah? You don't think that sources regularly make deals with media organizations on such terms? Sounds like another selective argument of convenience."

What gave him the right to do any thing to manage exclusivity? Wikileaks stated purpose was to release information to the public and keep the source from being identified. Who are they to determine who gets to see what and when they get to see it? That sounds pretty much like any other news organization to me. You know the king of new organizations who slant the information to support their editorial line. In short Assange is a fraud who duped a bunch of idiots into believing his interpretation of the data instead of making up their own minds by looking at the raw data.

Re:Traitors

[Uberbah]

Just they fact it was edited in the first place before release is the point moron.

Then we're back to every nightly and cable news show being unfair because they also edit footage to cut to the action. Moron.

Look, this isn't that hard. Really. The Brietbart clips of the ACORN takedown were beyond unfair because they spliced in footage of a "pimp and his hooker" who weren't even there. The media orgy over the "Dean Scream" was unfair, because while the recording was funny, if you played the audio from the viewpoint of the audience you never heard it, as it was taken from noise-canceling microphones - a fact left out of the storyline. Or how Rev. Wright and Shirley Sherrod were treated unfairly by having all the context left out of the soundbytes played on TV.

So where, AGAIN, EXACTLY , was Wikileaks unfair to the U.S. armed forces?

What footage was spliced in from another site? Answer: none.

What context was removed from the "Collateral Murder" video? Did one of the now-dead reporters say, fire off a couple shots at the attack helicopter, inviting a retaliation? Answer: no.

You don't have a beef, you have irrelevant, situational nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

What gave him the right to do any thing to manage exclusivity? Wikileaks stated purpose was to release information to the public and keep the source from being identified. Who are they to determine who gets to see what and when they get to see it? That sounds pretty much like any other news organization to me. You know the king of new organizations who slant the information to support their editorial line. In short Assange is a fraud who duped a bunch of idiots into believing his interpretation of the data instead of making up their own minds by looking at the raw data.

More nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking - with a side order of self-contradiction to boot. You compare Wikileaks for acting like a media organization and them complain at them for acting like a media organization? Okaaaaay.

As for why making news exclusive to certain media outlets, this has already been explained ad nausiem, and no doubt you've seen it already. Wikileaks tried the "release everything, all at once" method and the scoops were ignored by the media. If something was commonly available, it had no value. So how to artificially create value? Why, by releasing the information to select media outlets first, like the New York Times. By having a "valuable" piece of news, the Times would actually print it.

Now, one last time: just how, exactly was the "Collateral Murder" video unfair to the U.S. Military in either events or context? Where is your there there?

Re:Traitors

[cavreader]

"Then we're back to every nightly and cable news show being unfair because they also edit footage to cut to the action. Moron

I said the main media outlets edit information too support their particular point of view. I never defended their actions. The Wikileaks data was raw and unedited information that should have been released as is. I never mentioned anything about the major news outlets being truthful. I also did not argue that the US military was harmed in any way except for exposing their poor security measures which allowed the data to be collected. The "Collateral Murder" video was edited to influence and obscure the context in which the actions occurred. Wikileaks was supposed to be better than the main media outlets but ended up becoming just like them. The edited version left of a good portion of the radio communications between the pilots and thier commanders. They left out the fact that US ground forces were involved in a fight a couple of blocks away. They also added a sidetrack and captions embedded in the video to make sure their point of view and spin was incorporated with the video. In essence they published their interpretation of the events when they should have released the data with no changes to let people make their own decisions.
"Wikileaks tried the "release everything, all at once".

They didn't own the data but they acted like they did. You need to let people see the information and editing it in any way makes them no different than any other news organization. People constantly complain about bias in the mainstream news outlets but Wikileaks did the same thing. They were advertised as an organization to supply information conduits to protect the source but they went far beyond that stated mandate. There were reasons a lot of their top people quit after realizing the Assange had an agenda that contradicted what they should have been doing. If CNN or CBS had the data and used it like Wikileaks I imagine you would be furious.
The only thing that bothered me a little was the release of the Afghanistan after action military reports. That type of information can be used to pattering US military actions and making it possible for other militarises to look and predict the US tactics based on the situation.

Lesson for other hacking groups

[GameboyRMH]

Set out code-words you can use to indicate that you're under coercion.

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[Beardo the Bearded]

Everyone should have code words like this. I have some and my family knows what they are. If I'm in Serious Trouble, I can drop one of the phrases into casual conversation and they'll know to get help.

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[Elisanre]

He did tweet " the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist" and basically disapeared for a month..

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[I Read Good]

That doesn't work out very well if the police have all of your chat logs...

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[GameboyRMH]

Any half-decent hacker disables chat logs before using any chat app.

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[I Read Good]

That's telling, because they seem to have a lot of chat logs from all of these guys.

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[gottabeme]

What kinds of serious trouble are you thinking of? And what kind of help? And how'd you convince these folks to take your idea seriously rather than thinking you're simply paranoid?

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[meeotch]

ECHELON? Is that where the UKUSA searches for words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy?

Oh my God! Beardo - did they make you post that? Are you o.k.? Did they hurt you? Type "first post" if you want us to call the cops.

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[Thing 1]

Really? That sounds an awful lot like "Any half-decent secret communicator puts their fingers in their ears before yelling the secrets"...

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[GameboyRMH]

Or more accurately, "Any half-decent secret communicator doesn't leave a constantly running tape recorder in their pocket."

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[xevioso]

Just want to quote from the source article:

"But the raid had, in fact, already happened. CW-1 was "Sabu," a top Anon/LulzSec hacker who was in real life an unemployed 28-year old living in New York City public housing. His sixth-floor apartment had been visited by the FBI in June 2011, and Sabu had been arrested and "turned." For months, he had been an FBI informant, watched 24 hours a day by an agent and using a government issued laptop that logged everything he did."

24 hours a day.

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[GameboyRMH]

That's why they should have decided on a code word beforehand that they could slip into conversation even under surveillance. But they probably didn't see this coming, probably due to lack of skill. I bet Sabu posted to Twitter in a traceable way.

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[Thing 1]

With respect, I'm not sure yours is an improvement. I was pointing out that there are parties unknown to the communicator who are listening in, hence the "being deaf and yelling". A tape recorder that is under the communicator's control is not quite the same thing.

Re:Lesson for other hacking groups

[mjwx]

Everyone should have code words like this. I have some and my family knows what they are. If I'm in Serious Trouble, I can drop one of the phrases into casual conversation and they'll know to get help.

Please dont tell me they are bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy?

There will be more

[Omnifarious]

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.

Re:There will be more

[shawn(at)fsu]

You may be right you can't fight ideas but you can certainly fight groups. Just look at the italian mob versus what it used to be.

Re:There will be more

[gl4ss]

the italian mafia was the establishment. but they've been losing to the idea no matter how many guys they whacked, the mafia can't handle exposure.

Re:There will be more

[The Wild Norseman]

the italian mafia was the establishment.

What do you mean? The Italian mafia still is the establishment.

Re:There will be more

[Anrego]

This Hammond person is basically exactly who you'd expect him to be.

Yup! I'm actually kind of disappointed. I was hoping for some some big shock.. instead nope.. he is exactly what I and just about everyone else pictured.

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.

The FBI just demonstrated the risk. As I see it, things arn't really bad enough in the eyes of most to take that risk yet. At the very least, this action is going to delay things for a while (until things get worse and people are willing to risk a very real possibility of serious jail time).

Re:There will be more

[brainzach]

Having less trust within the organization will certainly weaken it.

Most importantly, the aura of invincibility is gone. These aren't hardened gang members who don't sweat going to prison or dying for a cause. When it becomes evident that jail time is a real possibility for these keyboard warriors, they will think twice before committing crimes.

I am not saying it will stop everyone, but it will be hard to argue that it has no effect.

Re:There will be more

[leonardluen]

i think it is spelled "Mafiaa" now and sometimes "RIAA"

Re:There will be more

[sander]

Right. Just like the suffragettes backed down immediately it became obvious that its dangerous? Just like the civil rights people all disappeared into thin air the moment it became clear that not only can you go to prison or get killed for it, but more of then than not, the goons were the people supposedly upholding law? There is no credible evidence to date that anonymous and lulzsec members don't know what they are up to, or penalties for getting caught.

Re:There will be more

[poity]

Suffragettes didn't do it for the lulz iirc.

Re:There will be more

[sander]

Neither did Hammond.

Re:There will be more

[poity]

So what did he do it for? Compromising stratfor's servers and dumping cc numbers was done in pursuit of what cause?

So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manning?

[Sycraft-fu]

After all that's what he did. Worse still he had actually taken a formal and solemn oath (written and oral) not to reveal the secrets he did.

so.. feds sell guns to mexican mafia..

[gl4ss]

and fbi funds the guys who distribute cc's?
tell, couldn't they now claim that fbi made them do it? couldn't stratfor (of all yuckies) now sue the feds for letting it happen?

(anyhow, seems like possibly the biggest "damages" are actually from using so many feds on this. seems like ridiculously overboard. it's not like this is the mexican mafia you know. and the log on the article doesn't paint a too bad picture about the intended speculated use for the cc's, to buy server time to distribute the rest of the material).

Leak poisoning

[l00sr]

I think the most interesting part of this by far is how the FBI managed to undermine the credibility of Wikileaks by getting them to leak arguably bogus material: Sabu actually used FBI equipment to hack Stratfor while under their employment. So... next time an intelligence leak rolls around, how are we supposed to know it wasn't a three-letter-agency spreading disinformation?

Re:Leak poisoning

[gl4ss]

how did you ever know? you didn't. it's what's in the data that matters. a lot of things could be fabricated - but if it's fabricated really well and is as good as truth, checks out even, what's actually the difference?

Re:Leak poisoning

[drobety]

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?

Re:Leak poisoning

[buchner.johannes]

I think the most interesting part of this by far is how the FBI managed to undermine the credibility of Wikileaks by getting them to leak arguably bogus material: Sabu actually used FBI equipment to hack Stratfor while under their employment. So... next time an intelligence leak rolls around, how are we supposed to know it wasn't a three-letter-agency spreading disinformation?

Wikileaks is not just passing on, but also checking and cleaning material. Otherwise it would be Openleaks. Nobody doubted that the Stratfor leak was a fake.

The trouble with Wikileaks is selection bias: More leaks come from the US because more is received by Wikileaks. That doesn't mean the corruption index is higher than some other countries. But Wikileaks also prioritizes, and chooses what to put on the "front page". That is worrisome.

Re:Leak poisoning

[Dr. Tom]

It was pretty clear Stratfor was a bunch of idiots, once you went through the material that was leaked. Now we know the FBI targeted them specifically for the fall because they were a bunch of noobs and nothing of value would be lost. We already knew nothing of value had come from it, except that Stratfor was a ridiculous company.

Re:Leak poisoning

[drobety]

Wikileaks is not just passing on, but also checking and cleaning material. Otherwise it would be Openleaks. Nobody doubted that the Stratfor leak was a fake.

Huh? "Cleaning material"? "Openleaks", the guys who papershred the leaked materials they had? "Nobody doubted that the Stratfor leak was a fake"... "Nobody"? Wait, how exactly do you know it is indeed "fake"? "The trouble with Wikileaks is selection bias"... Hum yes, an organisation dedicated to transparency will usually publish materials which document wrongdoings, that's the bias.

Re:Leak poisoning

[Obfuscant]

a lot of things could be fabricated - but if it's fabricated really well and is as good as truth, checks out even, what's actually the difference?

What's the difference between the truth and a lie? This is just sad. Very very sad.

Re:Leak poisoning

[buchner.johannes]

"Nobody doubted that the Stratfor leak was a fake"

Oops I of course meant "Nobody doubted that the Stratfor leak was real" or "Nobody thought that the Stratfor leak was a fake".
Yes, cleaning material, as in removing document headers, watermarks, etc.

Re:Leak poisoning

[The Mister Purple]

While I certainly wouldn't hire Stratfor to secure any of my servers, do you publish a yearly review of your predictions and mention what you got wrong?

It's kind of funny how the "Stratfor is a joke" meme took hold. It just seems to slide past the critical thinking filter on some people. How many of you have read any Stratfor articles? You can read them for free right now right here, so give it a try. The only thing stopping you is fear of being proven wrong.

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[Omnifarious]

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.

Re:Good riddance, LulzSec

[Stargoat]

Black collar criminals are every bit as bad as white collar ones and street thugs. Society can quickly fall apart when a minority attempt to take laws and justice into their own hands.

Except for all the times that it didn't, of course.

We'd all be better off today with less police and more tar and feathers. Except for those getting tarred and feathered. Maybe. They still might be better off than being thrown into the rape cafe.

Not likley to do any good

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Not likley to do any good

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Well that's why you have to set out a protocol to go with it. If someone uses their coercion code word, the procedure is to stop talking about anything you don't want the cops to know about, and then at the next meeting everybody says there's a rumor that the cops are getting too close and they're breaking up the group. Then the remaining members form a new group with new pseudonyms.

Re:Not likley to do any good

[GameboyRMH]

So they can alter the deal after the fact? Or if the term of the plea deal is that you must get results, that's a pretty risky deal to enter...

Re:Not likley to do any good

[theNAM666]

>You have to remember the deals the police make are very much a "You help us and get results or all bets are off.

If you take that deal, you're a freaking tool. The correct response is "charge me and talk to my lawyer, or get the fuck off my property." Done. Then they can offer a non-renegable plea deal if they wish, with your counsel as witness, or again they can fuck off.

This guy was a tool, and deserves a knife in the gut for it. I suspect once his name gets out, he'll get his in one way or another-- turning on LulzSec and Anonymous was not the brightest of ideas.

Re:Not likley to do any good

[xevioso]

I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

Re:Not likley to do any good

[xevioso]

My idea of morality leads me to conclude that in a group of thieves, who act as thieves on a regular basis, there is no such thing as a more or less moral or ethical thief when acting among themselves. If one thief among a group of thieves betrays other thieves, I'm happy with that, because it means there are now less thieves. I don't consider this person to be less honorable than the other thieves; after all, they are thieves, even the one who betrayed the others.

In this way, when I play the video game Skyrim, and go to the town which is run by thieves, the game tries to get you to choose sides between different groups of thieves and their silly internal thief squabbles.

I decided fairly soon after encountering these folks (it's a bar in a sewer area in a town at the lower right of the map, can't remember the name) that none of them were worth talking to. None was more moral than the other; I could not get enough information about which person was more or less moral or ethical than the others. The game presented them as thieves. I hate thieves.

So I killed them all.

Of course, annoyingly enough, it turns out some were important NPC's so they wouldn't stay dead. But I tried.

Re:Not likley to do any good

[theNAM666]

The above comment is certainly prosaic, but does it have anything to do with the topic at hand?

[citation needed]

Re:Not likley to do any good

[xevioso]

I was trying to make my point through an analogy. Essentially, I do not subscribe to the idea that snitches are somehow worse ethically or morally than people who commit crimes. A snitch in a criminal group is presumably committing crimes along with other members; whatever dishonorable act he commits by betraying his companions is negated by the fact he has potentially done a good thing by bringing other members to justice by ratting them out to the cops. Hypothetically speaking of course.

And in a video game where I don't have to take any consequences for my actions, I'd kill em all. But that's just me. And a video game.

Re:Not likley to do any good

[theNAM666]

Yes, I got the analogy. It's a pretty obvious one, however, by arguing through an attempt at metonomy, when there is a lack of clear similarity, your argument is inherently weak.

If you (or anyone) wants to come out and argue that Lulzsec is just a bunch of criminals, with some analytic depth, that'd be great. It'd be a lot better than the naive assumption that they are criminals.

Equally, with all the lulzsec fanbois out there, if someone wants to argue that they're Robin Hoods, with some analytic depth, instread of just cheerleading for them, that'd be great too.

Which reminds me-- I need to go taunt some of the fanbois, too :P

Re:Not likley to do any good

[xevioso]

They are not "merely" criminals, but they are at least that; the article link to shows how Hammonds and others actually used some of the CC# they stole; they took these cards and used them to "donate" to multiple "revolutionary organizations" and charities.

From the article:

"A document distributed after the Stratfor hack totted up the hack's damage.

"The sheer amount of destruction we wreaked on Stratfor's servers is the digital equivalent of a nuclear bomb," it said. "We rooted box after box on their intranet: dumping their mysql databases, stealing their private ssh keys, and copying hundred[s] of employee e-mail spools... We laid waste to their web server, their mail server, their development server, their clearspace and srm intranet portal and backup archives."

The document also claimed that more than $500,000 had been charged to credit cards and given to "charities and revolutionary organizations.""

This is thievery; thus they are thieves. My analogy stands.

Re:Not likley to do any good

[theNAM666]

Actually, it's not quite an anology if you don't make an actual analogy... but forget that for a moment.

Hacking Stratfor? Hell, there are people who would argue that doing so was patriotic duty; if I were a defense attorney, I might just argue that it was done with the full knowledge and complicity of the US FBI. Regardless, as a "crime," as much as overzelous prosecutors (and other fools) would like the public to believe that cybercrime is just the same as regular old crime, there are just as many arguments to the contrary.

$500K of credit card so-called "white collar" fraud, paid for by the credit card companies? (And actually, a great number of those 'causes' reversed the donations, so it's probably much less than $500K?) Cry me a river, and ain't I glad the FBI is going after that, and not murderers, child rapist and the goons who run Wall Street.

My point is that both anti- and pro-lulz positions are, as expressed on Slashdot, pretty darn toothless.

You analogy "stands?" What the heck does that mean? Can it sit and roll over, too? Drool, perhaps :P ?

Re:Not likley to do any good

[Dan541]

Why would Sabu pass up the opportunity for a lighter sentence just to protect some strangers. Most of these guys only know each other via pseudonym and have never met. So there often isn't allot of loyalty to begin with.

Re:Not likley to do any good

[WolfTheWerewolf]

The police/prosecutors can, and do, lie as often as they like.
Anything to get a conviction, which makes them look good.

noobs

[Lehk228]

They were working too closely together and trusted each other, rookie mistakes get behind 7 proxies and LURK MOAR

Re:noobs

[Baloroth]

And how well did that work out for Sabu? He may have been used to find the identities of other hackers, but I haven't seen any evidence he was caught that way, which means that while it is easier for the FBI to use CIs, they certainly don't need them to catch Anon/Lulzsec members.

Re:noobs

[The Mister Purple]

Sabu got caught because he slipped in renewing a domain under his real name and was subsequently doxed at least once.

I feel kind of dirty, typing "doxed".

Sabu was the small fish

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA: As it turns out, this Sabu guy wasn't the real target of the FBI. They just used him as the linchpin for a long effort to ensnare Hammond, who already has quite the lengthy rap sheet. This implies to me that the FBI was not conducting detective work to bust Lulzsec/Anonymous, but were more interested in hunting down someone who was known to be an effective anti-government actor and finding a way to put him behind bars for a long time. For all the slashdotters who often claim that allowing political dissent is the difference between US and China, well, this is how we silence political dissent in the US. Take out the people who can actually effect change and reform, and allow the masses of the powerless to believe that they are free because they can speak (and nothing more). This government is no better than China's, it's just more tactful/less blatant about achieving its end goal and thereby more insidious. In either country, the average citizen is powerless against the marriage of government and corporation.

Re:Sabu was the small fish

[jesseck]

TFA: As it turns out, this Sabu guy wasn't the real target of the FBI. They just used him as the linchpin for a long effort to ensnare Hammond, who already has quite the lengthy rap sheet. T

This is exactly what many articles are stating. The unsettling thing is, Hammond had to ask the Judge for a copy of his charge sheet so he could see what he did wrong. Did the FBI not have the evidence / ability to find Hammond on their own? Or did Hammond happen to be the "leader" of Anon the FBI was seeking when they compromised Sabu?

It doesn't sound like Hammond lived the life of a hermit, and that people knew who he was and how to find him. So why did the FBI need to go through Sabu to arrest him? It may be the connection from Sabu -> Lulzsec -> Anon -> Hammond which will demonize this activist in the eyes of the general population. Hell, I don't know... I just live here and think out loud.

Re:Sabu was the small fish

[MarkvW]

The FBI always has the basic problem of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the person seated in the defendant's chair actually sat at a computer and typed the stuff that resulted in the charged crime. That is why they did all the actual physical surveillance of the guy.

Sabu put Hammond into a connection with other people conspiring to do bad things. From that comes warrants, etc. that lead to other stuff.

They put a lot of effort into Hammond, because Hammond is a talented destroyer of other people's work. He is going to go down for years.

Re:Sabu was the small fish

[dave562]

What was that dirty hippy living off of welfare going to change and reform? He was leeching off of the very system that is broken. He reminds me of those OWS cry babies who think they are sticking it to the system by refusing to pay their student loans. The guy was not a revolutionary leader. He was someone who failed to make it in society and became bitter with the very system that he allowed himself to become dependent upon.

Re:Sabu was the small fish

[rwhamann]

I affect an object, I effect change. GP's grammar is correct.

Re:Sabu was the small fish

[RightSaidFred99]

Sorry, dude. We effect change by the vote, not by breaking the law. This little punk who had this pathetic leet haxxor image of himself wasn't some grand agent of change, he was just in it for the lulz. Well, now who's lulz..ing?

Re:Sabu was the small fish

[poity]

You've sugar-coated what he did with the phrase "political dissent" in order to spin him into a hero of some sort. In which utopia do you envision the dumping of private information and credit card numbers being respected as a form of "political dissent"? You'll find far better liberals than Hammond anywhere you look. I'd say this might be another case of 1st world problems -- here you are, churning out these melodramatic flourishes to frame petty vandalism as an act that champions the everyman, while on the other side of the world real people burn themselves to death with real flames in protest. Consider THAT political dissent.

Re:Sabu was the small fish

[Requiem18th]

Yep he's destroying the hard work of Stratford milking our government for money for allegedly lousy evidence, if you believe the spin that Stratford is harmless, or acting like a CIA front for domestic surveillance, if you don't.

Re:Sabu was the small fish

[xtracto]

We effect change by the vote,

Ooohh you are so cute!

Keep behaving well and Santa will bring you your toys next christmas!

Re:Sabu was the small fish

[MarkvW]

Yep he's destroying the hard work of Stratford milking our government for money for allegedly lousy evidence, if you believe the spin that Stratford is harmless, or acting like a CIA front for domestic surveillance, if you don't.

If a burglar burglarizes a drug house he's still a burglar. If he does it twice, he's still a repeat offender.

Hammond is a fool. He has the skills to work toward the society he wants by helping other people. Instead, he works toward the society he wants by violating the law.

I support a lot of the things Hammond stands for, but today's leftist 'ends-justifies-the-means' guy is tomorrows fascist. Maybe someday that idiot will figure that out.

Re:Sabu was the small fish

[lennier]

today's leftist 'ends-justifies-the-means' guy is tomorrows fascist.

Or yesterday's Stalinist, or today's Trotskyist.

I do wish people would stop saying "fascist" when they mean "authoritarian anti-democrat". Fascists and Communists fought like cats and dogs, but fascism was only one of many 20th century political movements that believed in mass mobilisation and a top-down command state. And a lot of hard-core union and Socialist Worker types today still basically think that Lenin was on the right track and what we really need to get society on the rails is a good purge of "class enemies" up against the walls.

Not that today's hard Right is much better, than today's hard Left, but let's use the correct political labels and stop trying to rewrite history. Otherwise we might dutifully avoid recreating German Fascism and end up creating something nearly indistinguishable with a different coloured flag. Whether that flag be red, black, or red, white and blue.

Re:Sabu was the small fish

[RightSaidFred99]

Totally. I'm kind of a silly monkey for now knowing how dirty hippie drum circles or pointless felony hacking can revolutionize this country.

Re:Sabu was the small fish

[Reservoir Penguin]

Money and CCs are a tool that oppressor classes use to keep us down. So undermining the monetary system is a legitimate form of protest. The Arab spring started with one guys burning himself, but later in Egypt and elsewhere there was a lot of burning of symbols of oppressor power.

So, was Stratfor taken down on orders of FBI?

[sander]

It raises a lot of questions about which initiatives of Lulzsec are actually genuinely their work and which as really the work of FBI, carried out by the willing hands of Lulzsec. Maybe FBI wanted to take down Stratfor, but lacking a legitimate way, siced their inside man on it. It will also make for a very obvious defence for anybody arrested - they have a very easy way of claiming that what they did was on orders of Sabu and hence the law enforcement agency themselves now trying to prosecute them.

This is also going to be a big blow to credibility of FBI.

Re:So, was Stratfor taken down on orders of FBI?

[The Mister Purple]

I wonder if, despite claims by some here that Stratfor was a joke, someone in the FBI wanted them trashed? Who was the first to mention Stratfor as a target? Was it Sabu? Why did Stratfor get picked?

Re:So, was Stratfor taken down on orders of FBI?

[sander]

Stratfor was not a joke. It still is not a joke, even if they have issues with computer security, but in that specific regard, they are no different to some random comapny and should not really be judged any differently. There are not many organisations that can do what they accomplish(ed).

If you want a motive for why FBI might want to have Stratfor be "trashed", you need not look any further than "foreign corrupt practices act". Stratfor would have been toeing the line in many cases, and yet have had powerful protectors telling FBI off from investigating. I'm not claiming FBI ordered it, or that this was the reason, but these are possible scenarios.

Re:So, was Stratfor taken down on orders of FBI?

[The Mister Purple]

That is one of the most plausible reasons I've encountered yet.

Re:So, was Stratfor taken down on orders of FBI?

[Heretic2]

Oh, I don't know about the FBI loosing credibility here. It seems like they rather elegantly took care of two birds with one stone, by birds I mean LuhlSec and Stratfor. Parts of the FBI obviously had a beef with Stratfor to have manipulated LuhlSec into taking them out. Likely rightfully so according to some of the fraudulent financial activities/insider trading their internal emails reference. I'm guessing some FBI agents weren't too happy with this group but faced internal pressure to not pursue the matter further... The FBI has thusly demonstrated they have extra-legal ways to take you down even if you think have enough inside political ties to keep the FBI off your operations, they're willing to work outside the system to getcha.

I can't wait to see how this plays out, this is more interesting than any drama on TV or the theatres. My take away, neither the LuhlSec crew or Stratrfor crew were anywhere as smart as they thought they were.

You Paint the World so Perfectly Black and White

[eldavojohn]

From the many news articles out there:

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.

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 ... 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.

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 ... well ... that doesn't mean the situation is completely black and white.

I disagree with the last line of the article

[RossR]

"Now, those beliefs could land him in serious trouble."

Hammond is not in trouble because of his beliefs. He is free to have beliefs and advocate for change. Instead of building and making, he destroyed and discredited his ideas.

     

Re:I disagree with the last line of the article

[_0x783czar]

agreed

Re:I disagree with the last line of the article

[sander]

Hammond is in trouble because of his beliefs. Because the net that FBI cast to select which members of Lulzsec to target for closer observation and then prosecution was not primarily based on the gravity of the actions of the members, but on other actions the people supported and the beliefs they echoed. Sure, he is also in trouble because he did illegal things - but out of a large set of people to prosecute, he was picked based on the statements he made. Which he did based on his beliefs.

Just because he is in trouble because of his alleged criminal actions, it does not mean he is also not in trouble because of his beliefs.

So, I can sue the FBI for my identity theft?

[tekrat]

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.

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[buchner.johannes]

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.

That was indeed the case. The threat to his children was not seeing their father when in prison. That's why he agreed to cooperate. [src]

The lesson for us to learn --- never have kids.

When will they learn the rules...

[osu-neko]

Stay alert, TRUST NO ONE, keep your laser handy...

Re:When will they learn the rules...

[LoP_XTC]

Stay alert, TRUST NO ONE, keep your laser handy...

Im sorry citizen oso-neko but the lack of grade in your name indicates you are an infrared citizen and knowledge of that motto is restricted to red or higher grades. Please see the computer for reassignment to food-vat of your choice.

LulzSec: a failed movement

[_0x783czar]

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"

Re:LulzSec: a failed movement

[formfeed]

... 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.

Very typical for a radical movement. Whether right or wrong, whether you call them terrorists or revolutionaries, this is a very typical behavior for the radical wing of a movement.

The problem with a close-knit political (or religious) group is that it tends to isolate itself from people outside of their world view. Once you discovered that everything is a lie and something has to be done, you gravitate towards people with the same experience. Your peers confirm your believes and support your actions.

The same happens of course with what the main stream calls "normal". There can be 100,000 people demonstrating against war, mainstream media covers little of it or presents it completely distorted. And while the media have their own narrative into which they fit their reporting, this clashes with what the activist experience as their reality. Which only makes things worse, isolates, and radicalizes.

A society that doesn't want that would need to be pluralistic, with political access for groups other than big career politicans, and free speech, that is not ignored but lets groups participate based on member support not just money support.

Re:LulzSec: a failed movement

[theNAM666]

>To bring about change you must win the hearts and minds of the public.

Yeah. Like the heroes of the French Revolution. Madame La Guilloutine certainly had the heart and mind of every living citizen in her grasp, and the neck of everyone else in her mouth, c'est la Verite, non?

Re:LulzSec: a failed movement

[gtall]

High minded goals? Bullshit, they're just a bunch of individuals who think they are right and the "establishment", which they get to define for themselves, is wrong. They are simply vigilantes, nothing more.

Re:LulzSec: a failed movement

[lennier]

>To bring about change you must win the hearts and minds of the public.

Yeah. Like the heroes of the French Revolution. Madame La Guilloutine certainly had the heart and mind of every living citizen in her grasp, and the neck of everyone else in her mouth, c'est la Verite, non?

Perhaps that's why the first French Republic quickly turned into an Empire? The next couple of revolutions didn't involve quite so much beheading, if I have my history correct.

Re:LulzSec: a failed movement

[theNAM666]

I thought it was more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_of_18_Brumaire :)

Re:LulzSec: a failed movement

[_0x783czar]

As per NetNeutrality, they want what I want (generally), that's what I mean by "High Minded Goals". I don't mean to legitimize them in any way. They are foolish vigilantes, and are hurting their own cause.

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[Anonymous Coward]

Or: If you want to be mean to people, be sure you have the backing of a major government.

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[winterchapo]

I freaking knew this forever alone life choice was gonna come in handy some day!

Re:Unit, Corps, God, Country. A few good men

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

my 2 cents

[M0j0_j0j0]

This is all part of the game, and probably fake , they are trying to spread havoc among the crackers.

FBotI

[Oswald McWeany]

If the FBI are to stand any chance at catching these people in the future they can't rely on manpower.

Seems like an awful lot of work went in to catching Hammond. Watching his traffic - having Sabu watch when his suspected profiles log on/off. Watching what MAC addresses connected to his wireless router, etc.

If there were 100 Hammonds- 100 Lulzsecs- could they catch them all. What if there were 1000? I don't know how many hacker groups they watch at once- most don't advertise themselves like Lulz did. Seems like it required a lot of effort to catch one man- could they afford to do that in 100 or 1000 concurrent investigations.

To stand a chance the FBI needs an F-Bot-I to do the watching/monitoring, etc. Otherwise- as this problem grows- they won't be able to track everyone at once.

It'll be like one cop trying to pull over speeders on the interstate during rush hour. You can catch one or two- but the vast majority will just slide right on through.

Re:FBotI

[The Mister Purple]

Much of the current criminal law system depends on the rest of the speeders being intimidated by the sight of the few being pulled over and ticketed.

One look at the freeways in Los Angeles will tell you how well that is working.

The police are smarter than you think

[Sycraft-fu]

Particularly the FBI. They'd figure this out. The "convenient" breaking up of a group wouldn't fly.

Also you have to keep in mind the mindset of a CI. So let's say you've been doing something highly illegal the FBI shows up at your place and arrests you. They take you away and sit you in an interview room. You ask for and get a lawyer. They then proceed to lay out the evidence they have against you and the crimes you are guilty of. You can see that their evidence is through, they've got you. You are looking at a LONG time in prison.

Then they have a proposition. You turn states evidence, you work for them and help them bust the people you were working with and they'll reduce your sentence a LOT. You were looking at 60 years, now you are looking at 5 and could be out in 2. The charges are a lot less too, they'll reflect less poorly on you upon release. Your lawyer says "Do it, it is a good deal."

What do you do? Remember getting the deal is predicated on you helping them completely and it getting results. You tip off your buddies and they scat and at best you get back to your original charges and at worst they can stick a new tampering charge on you.

Think about this seriously, don't try and play Internet Toughguy and say "Of course I'd do it! Fuck da' police!" Would you really? Or would you act in your own interests?

Also please remember that this guy was probably in complete shock. Like most of these haxs0r types I'm sure he thought he was invincible and untraceable. So all this crashing down on him scared the hell out of him. I'm sure he was extremely willing to cooperate.

Re:The police are smarter than you think

[Chakra5]

Think about this seriously, don't try and play Internet Toughguy and say "Of course I'd do it! Fuck da' police!" Would you really? Or would you act in your own interests?

Or more to the point, act in your children's best interest, which come to think of it is probably what you should have been acting in in the first place

Re:The police are smarter than you think

[Znork]

A 'convenient' break up would be very suspicious. However, a known informant is a great asset to have; continue as usual and feed them disinformation. Trick them into unfounded raids, etc, which is probably exactly what they were worried about as they seemed to go quite far in verifying their target.

Perhaps he got a very good deal, but if it's 5 years instead of 60 it won't really matter; I wouldn't bet on the length of the sentence being the biggest issue for someone as widely identified as a snitch as this guy.

Re:The police are smarter than you think

[Brian Feldman]

The entire world is not as spineless as you would have us believe.

Re:The police are smarter than you think

[zzsmirkzz]

Think about this seriously, don't try and play Internet Toughguy and say "Of course I'd do it! Fuck da' police!" Would you really? Or would you act in your own interests?

I would of thought of it beforehand and decided before I got involved. "Don't do the crime if it is not worth the time" is the mantra. Once you have decided to do the crime, you should have already accepted doing the time and it should be easy to exercise your right to remain silent. The fact that no one seems to have any honor anymore is very depressing.

Re:The police are smarter than you think

[theNAM666]

> They take you away and sit you in an interview room. You ask for and get a lawyer. They then proceed to lay out the evidence they
>have against you and the crimes you are guilty of. You can see that their evidence is through, they've got you. You are looking at a LONG time in prison.

[citation needed]

Jesus fucking christ. Never been interrogated, have you? US Police are not the Stazi. The above has just about zero accuracy; you're talking out of your ass.

Re:The police are smarter than you think

[Beerdood]

"Think about this seriously, don't try and play Internet Toughguy and say "Of course I'd do it! Fuck da' police!" Would you really? Or would you act in your own interests?"

This article made me think a little about the whole morality and justice aspect to the purpose of lulzsec / anon / any internet vigilante group. Are they truly doing this thinking they're the robin hood or batman - dispensing justice for others that can't find it themselves? Vigilantes of the internet? Or just troublemakers looking to stir up trouble, but doing this as a way to feel justified.

If it's a crime that benefits yourself (i.e. gathering mob protection money, burglary, blackmail) like in the parent analogy - then I would think there's a higher chance the criminal would work with authorities to benefit himself with a reduced sentence. But what if you truly believe that what you're doing isn't a crime, or that you're truly doing something for the world? For example if you're a captain of a ship and work for greenpeace, and you basically harass fisherman & oil tankers during your daily routine (or something like that) - and you're arrested, interrogated and told you'll be given a reduced sentence if you rat your friends out - would you do it? I would think that this captain is less likely to rat out friends than a criminal, because he thinks he's making the world a better place

So to me, it kind of questions the integrity of the members of these online "movements". Are they doing this because they truly believe they're making a difference in the world and dispensing justice? Or are these the type of people that just like watching shit go down - the kind that would be writing malicious viruses for no profit if these groups didn't exist? Obviously, the actions of one individual aren't representative of the whole movement - but it makes you wonder how much "good" he thought he was doing by running lulzsec if he was willing to compromise his own principles to save his ass.

Re:The police are smarter than you think

[Reservoir Penguin]

Just watch Freedom Downtime. A hacker was detained, tortured in police custody leaving him with permanent disability and then released w/o charge.

Re:The police are smarter than you think

[theNAM666]

Thank you. [sarcasm] Because I'd never heard of Kevin Mitnick, never met him... [/sarcasm]

Mitnick is an outlier, obviously, silly :)

Re:The police are smarter than you think

[Reservoir Penguin]

It was not Mitnick. Mitnick was charged and convicted. There is another guy in the film who was tortured.

Re:The police are smarter than you think

[theNAM666]

>It was not Mitnick. Mitnick was charged and convicted. There is another guy in the film who was allegedly[1] tortured.

[citation needed]

[footnote 1: Fixed that for you]

>US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil

[footnote 2: If your anti-semetic rump is as paranoid as your comments imply, you sure you want to be making that statement in public?]

Re:The police are smarter than you think

[Reservoir Penguin]

I'm not anti-semitic, I'm however anti-imperialist and anti-new-world-order where US and it's cronies (should have added Australia to the list) wish to dictate their will to the rest of the world.

Re:The police are smarter than you think

[theNAM666]

Spoken like a true Obenfuehren.

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[Isaac Remuant]

or don't care about anyone so they have no leverage over you!

I'm not anti-social! Just careful!

Re:You Paint the World so Perfectly Black and Whit

[Dhalka226]

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"?

(Not the OP.)

Thinking about your children and the impact that your actions have on them is awesome. I fully encourage it. It is, I think, part of the responsibility of parenthood: Your life is no longer just about you, and you need to be cognizant of that fact.

But it's rather late at the government informant stage to throw down the "look how good of a parent I am!" card, isn't it?

Would I risk my loved ones for my ideals? Probably not. But see, I would make that determination before I decided to commit federal crimes and then not commit them. If I decide to commit the crimes, I have already abandoned my children to the hope I am never caught. Having a last-minute change of heart doesn't make him noble and it doesn't make up for what he did to his kids--he's still likely to go to jail.

Since we're quoting media it reminds me of a scene from The Simpsons, where Bart is talking to an, ahem, faith healer:

Bart: I figure I'll go for the life of sin, followed by the presto-change-o deathbed repentance.
Brother Faith: Wow, that's a good angle. Uh, but it's not God's angle. Why not spend your life helping people instead? Then you're also covered in case of sudden death.
Bart: Full coverage? Hmm...

Sorry, Sabu; you don't get full coverage. So yeah, he deserves our derision for being a scumbag to his children. He also deserves our derision for squealing like a stuck pig the second he was caught, and for throwing everybody who acted with him under the bus to save himself.

Every single turn on this whole LulzSec trip he has shown himself to be utterly and completely self-interested. "Should I commit crimes? Forget the kids." "Oh no, consequences! Forget the others!" He can try to paint it however he wants, but he's still a little fuck from every perspective I can see.

yeah

[buddyglass]

pwn3d.

Re:FBI are a bunch of pussies

[brainzach]

Like it or not, the FBI did outsmart many of the members of Lulzsec.

While the Feds may lack the technology skills, they are able to make it up with their expertise in social engineering.

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[locotx]

He should have known better as a father that they would use his children as the crutch to break him.

"What are you,

[I Read Good]

stoned or stupid? You don't hack a bank across state lines from your house, you'll get nailed by the FBI. Where are your brains, in your ass? Don't you know anything?"

I can't believe they caught the twats at home. If these guys were worth their salt they would have done the following:

-Stayed mobile.

-Done some of the things that this list warns people to look out for.

-TRUSTED NO ONE.

Interesting timing

[Fned]

Was Sabu working for the FBI when Anonymous took down all those child porn sites in October...?

Re:Interesting timing

[Pokermike]

I didn't read about that, but I know I won't like the result of googling "Anonymous Child Porn."

Re:Bullsh*t

[Brian Feldman]

Murdering civilians, attacking political/financial targets... yeah, those are the same, right?

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[squidflakes]

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.

Re:Entrapment?

[The Mister Purple]

In the world of plea bargains, entrapment is irrelevant. Besides, someone who is innocent wouldn't steal credit card numbers even if said card numbers were offered up on the proverbial silver platter.

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[Agripa]

Manning took the same oath that everyone entering the military takes, to defend the Constitution of the United States.

It is more of a guideline than a rule.

Re:FBI are a bunch of pussies

[RightSaidFred99]

Cry moar, crybaby. This is how real police work gets done. It's not like on TV where there's semen everywhere for DNA samples and they can use the zortec II interferometer with micro-slit refreractomy. They find some guy to snitch on his asshole buddies, case closed.

Without snitches, no one would be in jail

[QuincyDurant]

From today's New York Times:

HOUSTON — A federal jury on Tuesday convicted R. Allen Stanford, a Texas financier, on 13 out of 14 counts of fraud in connection with a worldwide scheme that lasted more than two decades and involved more than $7 billion in investments....

The jury decision followed a six-week trial and came three years after Mr. Stanford was accused of defrauding nearly 30,000 investors in 113 countries in a Ponzi scheme involving $7 billion in fraudulent high-interest certificates of deposit at the Stanford International Bank, which was based on the Caribbean island of Antigua. ...

The prosecutors heavily relied on James M. Davis, Mr. Stanford’s former roommate from Baylor University, who served as his chief financial officer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/business/jury-convicts-stanford-in-7-billion-ponzi-fraud.html?scp=1&sq=james%20m%20davis&st=cse

  Whether his name is James M. Davis or Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, the FBI informant is the key ingredient in putting people like R. Allen Stanford and John Gotti where, in my view at least, they richly deserve to be. I don't know if Lulzsec's guys belong in jail. But if they do, finding somebody to snitch them out is the FBI's job.

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[nfras]

You're on Slashdot. I think a high proportion of the people on here will not have a remote chance of having children. But if any of the neckbeards on here want to justify their lack of children by saying they lived in fear of one day having kids used against them by the FBI, rather than the fact that no sane woman with most of her own teeth would sleep with them, then you have helped the less fortunate of the world and done your good deed for the day.

Re:FBI Sting

[TaoPhoenix]

So a few episodes back of this show, weren't we saying that stuff wasn't adding up in the tone and the feds were False Flagging? "Informant" is a little different, but close - in that they're still going to try to point to these groups and go all "see, our kiddies aren't safe from these online terrorists!"

And out came the usual "Tin Foil Hat" arguments in response.

Except - it turned out true after all.

So now where do we stand in the Meta-Eval here?

So you're ignoring the Constitution?

[Uberbah]

Worse still he had actually taken a formal and solemn oath (written and oral) not to reveal the secrets he did.

Manning's oath was to protect the Constitution, not American Imperialism.

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[Vintermann]

Do you think making crude stereotypes like these is supposed to be funny? Speaking of social ineptitude...

Slashdot has been eclipsed by younger sites like reddit. Most of those of us who hang around here are pretty old, as a casual look at the registration numbers suggest.

Re:FBI Sting

[rtb61]

Speaking of kids, you would think the FBI would have some sympathy for his. They way they outed it all for maximum publicity with total disregard to the impact on his children. Kids are cruel and you can imagine the kind of attacks his kids will suffer as the children and such a publicly exposed betrayer.

Also one has to wonder at how those victims of the FBI orchestrated attacks over many months must feel. If I was one of those victims I'd be lawyering up to sue the hell out of the FBI for the crimes they orchestrated, not only allowing them to occur but initiating them. Easy money to make because the FBI will be forced to settle rather than battle out their criminal actions in court and considering wilful damages and penalties as well as loss of reputation and long term harm settlements could readily blow out to the millions.

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[xevioso]

I don't think it was crude at all. It was rather apt. I'm a neckbeard and have no plans for kids. I'm the neckbeardiest neckbeard in neckbeardurbia.

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[bill_mcgonigle]

After all that's what he did. Worse still he had actually taken a formal and solemn oath (written and oral) not to reveal the secrets he did.

But his duty to report war crimes is higher than his oath of secrecy. His oath to the Consitution is higher yet.

The Last Lulz Movie

[acooks]

I hope that whomever makes the movie pays attention to the details. No spinning rubix cubes or hand waving at transparent surfaces, please!

But first, they have to decide who's the Good Guy(s)...

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[misexistentialist]

What's the point of seeing kids if you are dishonored? Aung San Suu Kyi didn't see her kids for many years, but was a great mother.

Re:So you'll feel the same way about Bradley Manni

[xenobyte]

The FBI cannot prevent someone from having visitors in prison - it's just an empty threat used along with other lies and 'games' (good cop, bad cop for instance) to intimidate their suspects.

The judge can and the prison can, given proper justification. Preventing children from visiting is even harder as they have a right to visit their father, a right that can only be removed if the father is convicted of something directly involving the children (violence, incest etc.).

Can't believe that that people still fall for this. Bad lawyers perhaps?

A good lawyer would advise the defendant to shut up and not do anything until a written plea is on the table. If no plea is offered, continue to say nothing no matter what. Make the FBI work for every inch. Agreeing to work as as informant is a defacto admission of guilt which means that once he's in, there' no way out - ever.

Finally, this guy has killed his career here. Nobody would ever trust him, especially in the hacker environment.

A guy like Kevin Mitnick can work as a security consultant these days and is also still respected in the hacker community because he didn't sell out. He stood his ground and it has since become evident that he didn't give away anything the authorities hadn't already figured out. He still has active backdoors here and there and he can still do his magic. Oh, and the technical part of his work is just a minor thing. His true force is the ability to manipulate people to do his bidding ("social engineering"). The book "The Art of Deception" hold many examples, all supposedly something somebody else did, but rest assured that some of his own work hides in there. The message being that any system that includes humans can be broken with very little effort if you know what you're doing. Anonymous did just that when they hacked HBGary, and combined with a classic lack of security protocols (and revisions that would have caught it), they completely owned everything - mails, servers, social media accounts etc. - and the feat has been repeated a dozen times now with targets including both security firms and the FBI itself, and it's still incredibly efficient.

Oh, and social engineering in itself isn't illegal. It's only if you use the information/access you are given that you start breaking laws, i.e. using obtained names and letterhead paper (found legally in a dumpster) to forge a document, or use acquired login credentials to gain access to resources you're not authorized to use.

Sabu's Home Address

[theNAM666]

OK, let's do this again:

Hector X Monsegur
90 Avenue D, Apt 6F
New York, NY 10009-5511

(from public records search)

Re:"Won't someone think of his kids?"

[TaoPhoenix]

Yep, now you see how the game works - the last hidden hole cards.

They draft bills to Protect Kids From 4Chan but they threaten to kill your kids if it helps their cause.

With that kind of logic in operation, nothing else matters.

So you're saying...

[metacell]

... the FBI lay behind the credit card theft themselves?

Re:FBI are a bunch of pussies

[Reservoir Penguin]

It'd interesting to see if they drop charges against sabu completely now. After all, you can't put a man with no fingernails on trial.