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

[Crasoose]

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

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

[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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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: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.

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: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.

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.