Slashdot Mirror


Accused LulzSec Members Left Trail of Clues Online

Trailrunner7 writes "When the long arm of the law reached in to arrest members of Anonymous's senior leadership on Tuesday, speculation immediately turned to the identities of the six men behind the Guy Fawkes mask. With the benefit of hindsight, it turns out that many had been hiding in plain sight, with day jobs, burgeoning online lives and — for those who knew where to look — plenty of clues about their extracurricular activities on behalf of the world's most famous hacking crew. Two of the accused, Darren Martyn (aka 'pwnsauce,' 'raepsauce,' and 'networkkitten,') and Donncha O'Cearbhail, formerly known as Donncha Carroll (aka 'Palladium'), sported significant online footprints and made little effort to hide their affinity for hacking. In other areas, however, Martyn (who was reported to be 25, but claimed to be 19), seemed to be on his way to bigger and better things. He was a local chapter leader of the Open Web Application Security Project in Galway, Ireland. He spent some of his free time with a small collective of computer researchers with Insecurety Research, under the name 'infodox.'"

221 comments

  1. So it goes by Securityemo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're all human, obviously. And perhaps the risk aversion that would have driven them to meticulously fly under the radar ultimately would have prevented them from creating such a spectacle in the first place?

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
    1. Re:So it goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem usually seems to be bragging and telling others things that they absolutely do not need to know.

    2. Re:So it goes by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hubris. A douchebag's own worst enemy. And rightfully so.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:So it goes by jhoegl · · Score: 1, Insightful

      huberis and a lack of maturity.
      Seriously... pwnsauce? How many 10 year olds out there have that name online? Worse than when people showed up with persona names like "Zerocool".

      In my mind it automatically brings up the question, "what are you, 12?"

      If you want to separate yourself from the pack, you dont run around using raepsauce that is for sure.
      This guy is not your typical hacker.

    4. Re:So it goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and a lack of maturity

      I personally think they're idiots, but the way the word "maturity" is thrown everywhere also seems wrong to me. As if anyone who does something that someone else doesn't like is objectively immature.

      "You found that joke funny!? You have a different sense of humor than me! That makes you immature!"
      "You used a name online that I don't like! Clearly you're objectively immature!"

      It's gotten to the point where the use of such words means absolutely nothing.

    5. Re:So it goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously... pwnsauce? How many 10 year olds out there have that name online? Worse than when people showed up with persona names like "Zerocool".

      Hey thanks for the tip, but "pwnsauce" is already taken in the online game I play. Got any other suggestions? I've been using "abbafan" but nobody believes me when I pretend to be 12.

    6. Re:So it goes by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      Seriously... pwnsauce? How many 10 year olds out there have that name online? Worse than when people showed up with persona names like "Zerocool".

      Hey thanks for the tip, but "pwnsauce" is already taken in the online game I play. Got any other suggestions? I've been using "abbafan" but nobody believes me when I pretend to be 12.

      Bieberfan?

    7. Re:So it goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "They sound like your typical arrogant leftist assholes. Ever notice these types always turn out to be modernized versions of yippies? Let 'em take the hot squat in Old Sparky."

      If only you were born at the right time, you would have been a good Brown Shirt.

      You sorry lowlife fascist piece of shit.

    8. Re:So it goes by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. This makes them bloody amateurs and highly vulnerable to classical law-enforcement approaches. Add to that that they pissed of a lot of people even some sympathetic to what anonymous tries to do with their anarchistic approach that did not stop from attacking individuals, an you have a recipe for disaster. I am not at all surprised they got caught.

      In addition, I strongly suspect their fabled abilities as hackers are vastly overstated too and they just went for the low-hanging fruits. Plenty of those still available as recent events show.

      A sorry bunch of losers with delusions of grandeur indeed.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:So it goes by lightknight · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Cultural programming. If you're going to do something illegal, be sure to announce it to the world: that means you need to be sure to tell a friend, a family member, talk about it on an IRC channel, or with a stranger at a bar. And if you're brought it for questioning, be sure to share a jail cell with a snitch, because it's always a good idea to confide in a criminal. Be sure to tell him that you totally did it, and have no remorse for your actions. Hell, if you are lucky enough, you'll get a roommate who will tell the people in charge that you've confessed, even if you haven't; don't worry, the judge will totally believe him (the standards for evidence these days is abysmal).

      And I second Taco Cowboy's post. I believe the rule, back in the day, was to launch an attack through several boxes (SSH -> SSH -> SSH -> SSH -> SSH), and being especially sure to kill the syslogger before doing anything. Finally, be sure to launch it all from a laptop that you haven't used for anything else, on a connection that isn't your own.

      And yes, the false leads are useful. The FBI loves it when they spend time tracing the breadcrumbs back to one of their own boxes (surprising the number of attacks, over the years, that have been launched from www.fbi.gov).

      Finally, never reuse a box you've used before. Laptop gets an extra squeaky clean format (and a copy of Slack or something), and all boxes between point A and Z are now permanently off-limits. Keep a good lawyer on retainer, and never h@x0r a box inside your own country. Never use a nickname that you've used or mentioned elsewhere (randomly generated is the way to go). For me, were I to engage in some hypothetical cracking, I would never use 'lightknight' as the login, password, or key to anything. Wouldn't reuse the password tied to this account either.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    10. Re:So it goes by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      Also, on a more cheerful and lively note, I think one of the songs on ohGrs most recent album is about the events leading up to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8fFqEdQQZQ

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    11. Re:So it goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only you were born at the right time, you would have been a good Brown Shirt.

      The Brown Shirts were fascists - socialists who were nationalists as opposed to internationalists, so they are kin to hippies.

      You sorry lowlife fascist piece of shit.

      You should save it for the Hippies/Yippies.

    12. Re:So it goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Rules to Hack and stay Free by:

      1. Never hack where you sleep, live, work, go to school, play, etc. To extend this idea a little, never hack from a location where there is any way at all to correlate your real identity. This includes public wifi spots where there are cameras, for example. As another example, if you use a library (assuming they don't also have cameras) it would be a bad idea to check a book out... or even have a card there.
      1b. This also includes recon and conversations related to hacking.
      1c. Leave your cellphone at home, or remove the battery.

      2. Most hackers can't afford to use a fresh, clean system for every hack or related activity. If you can, great. But if not, be sure you use a fully sanitized system, preferably one reserved just for hacking. A clean system running a non-installed OS and relying on virtual machines is the best option, encryption is a must-have and you absolutely have to be able to alter your NIC's MAC address. The hardware virtualization should be able to be altered so that nothing about the system will generate a consistent "fingerprint" across boots.

      3. Do not use public proxies or ones supplied by a 3rd party. Use only systems which you have personally compromised as a proxy agent.
      3b. All proxies should be regarded as already compromised, or even as honeypots. They should only be used to slow down the hunters, and assume that eventually they may yield some information even if they get scrubbed.

      4. Leave false trails when it is practical.
      4b. It is better to not leave a false trail, then it is to leave a false one and in the process create another real one.

      5. Never re-use handles, login names, passwords, drop locations, proxies, etc. Consider all that data one-time use only.

      6. Last, and most important is: Never become attached to anything which you cannot walk away from if you feel the Heat coming.

      Most hackers violate all these rules on a regular basis. They get lazy and sloppy, so they hack from home and re-use systems. They brag about what they did, intermix details of their real life with various handles, and re-use names, passwords, locations, and methods. People who don't follow these rules are Amateurs, not Professionals. Professionals can walk away from their entire real life if it ends up becoming compromised... most people who hack cannot do this and as such will never truly be "Elite".

    13. Re:So it goes by metacell · · Score: 1

      Seriously... pwnsauce? How many 10 year olds out there have that name online? Worse than when people showed up with persona names like "Zerocool".

      In my mind it automatically brings up the question, "what are you, 12?"

      Ah, but that's what the hacker wants you to believe. :-p

    14. Re:So it goes by metacell · · Score: 1

      I don't think hippies would've been very popular in Nazi Germany. The National Socialists (Nazis) were for law and order, planning, and doing your duty towards society. They people who advocated individuality and freedom were considered decadent.

      The idea that both Nazis and Communists shared was central planning. Both ideologies believed society could be made better if the state coordinated the production and distribution of goods and services, controlled the education of the young, and so on. That's also the idea that today's left has inherited (usually in a watered-down form). But the Nazis would've scoffed at most of the other ideas of today's left, such as supporting the disabled and mentally ill, letting children develop their individuality and creativity, having liberal sexual morals, following international law, and so on.

    15. Re:So it goes by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 4, Funny

      True pros kill themselves after each hack.

  2. When compilers are outlawed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... only outlaws will own compilers.

    1. Re:When compilers are outlawed... by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You laugh. Given the tract record of our government, our heroes in office may decide to pass another epic failure of a bill. DHS mandated list of federal certified software developers. All compilations are recorded, audited, and the compiler software itself certified by the feds. Give another 10 years. It will happen. Not because it should, but because it can be.

      I never said any of this was rational. Just projecting a future based on the insanity that's going on now.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:When compilers are outlawed... by nurb432 · · Score: 2

      You are optimistic. I give it 5 years before we all live behind digital walled gardens, tended by the feds.

      Be sure to keep backups of tools... before they are gone.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:When compilers are outlawed... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      More of an iron curtain, than a walled garden, but yes.

      They'll kill off this country, then move onto the next.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    4. Re:When compilers are outlawed... by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Well SW engineering does become more and more important for real world systems
      so I could positively see govs want to regulate you as they do with civil engineers..

      Which really sucks because last time I looked at what the govt thought I could do
      it was 100% incorrect.

      --
      -- no sig today
    5. Re:When compilers are outlawed... by biodata · · Score: 1

      I think you overestimate the reach of the feds. Yes they might take down a few domains right now but there comes a tipping point where other countries decide that their own corner of the internet does not belong to the feds. They are unlikely ever to take China or Russia in the foreseeable future, and large parts of Europe are likely to say 'thanks but no thanks, we've got this'.

      --
      Korma: Good
  3. This is fucking retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We have people who are killing others. They are bombing innocents. They are threatening the security of the free World. And they are eluding authorities.

    But God forbid you attack some Big Corps website and *gasp* force their website down! Then there's a HUGE manhunt to get those criminals!

    Every one of these "law enforcement" officials should get a swift kick in the ass and their priorities straightened out.

    1. Re:This is fucking retarded. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you suggesting that we don't need dozens of armed policemen and helicopters to arrest the owner of a website that facilitated the copying of copyrighted material!? Are you actually suggesting that murder is worse than 'hacking' a website or infringing upon someone's copyright and that perhaps these expensive investigations aren't necessary!?

      How dare you!

    2. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Taking a website down costs the company money and we all know the governments, law makers and law enforcers are in the pockets of the big corporations.
      On the other hand terrorists help to MAKE money for the corporations (arms, oil etc etc) so there is much less incentive to catch them.

      Capitalism at it's finest.

    3. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have people who are killing others. They are bombing innocents. They are threatening the security of the free World. And they are eluding authorities.

      But God forbid you attack some Big Corps website and *gasp* force their website down! Then there's a HUGE manhunt to get those criminals!

      Every one of these "law enforcement" officials should get a swift kick in the ass and their priorities straightened out.

      You don't assign every police officer to murder cases and let cases of car theft go uninvestigated, do you? You don't spend all of your resources going after counterfeiters and ignore the guy stealing social security checks from peoples' mailboxes. The people going after Anonymous are specialized for this kind of investigation. It would be pointless to put them on an anti-terrorism investigation.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big Corp? Big deal. The morons got arrogant and hacked government servers. You better believe when you deface the CIA's website they are going to take it personally.

    5. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      free World

      lol wut

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    6. Re:This is fucking retarded. by artor3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you insinuating that because there are worse crimes, we shouldn't enforce laws against the other crimes?

      Because that would be a really, really stupid argument.

    7. Re:This is fucking retarded. by NeoMorphy · · Score: 1

      We have people who are killing others. They are bombing innocents. They are threatening the security of the free World. And they are eluding authorities.

      But God forbid you attack some Big Corps website and *gasp* force their website down! Then there's a HUGE manhunt to get those criminals!

      Every one of these "law enforcement" officials should get a swift kick in the ass and their priorities straightened out.

      I fully agree with you that priorities need to be fixed. But this was easily predicted. You don't want Big Corps to focus on eliminating you, unless you have a death wish.

    8. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Dekker3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps he's insinuating that, if there's manpower to spare on either of those things, it should go to the more serious crimes. And the punishment should also fit the crime, and not be blown out of proportion.

      Even if he's not insinuating that, perhaps I should do so.

    9. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have people who are killing others. They are bombing innocents. They are threatening the security of the free World. And they are eluding authorities.

      But God forbid you attack some Big Corps website and *gasp* force their website down! Then there's a HUGE manhunt to get those criminals!

      Every one of these "law enforcement" officials should get a swift kick in the ass and their priorities straightened out.

      Right, because identity theft and monetary fraud should be ignored so long as there are murderers and rapists out there. And yes, the Lulzsec guys did, in fact, steal CC and SSN numbers and use them to commit fraud. Our present financial system, like it or not, is based around electronic identity and credit/debit. Comitting fraud like that destroys the trust in the system, which in turn contributes to economic insecurity for our entire economy.

      Was what they did as bad as the CEOs of mega-corporations who gamed the system, or a random murderer? No. Was it illegal and destructive to society, and therefore worthy of prosecution? Yes. Perhaps more importantly, if they let these guys continue, it gives other hackers confidence to try the same thing, and you can bet they won't all restrict themselves to hacking Stratfor: very soon, it would be your bank and your money that gets stolen, potentially destroying your entire life. Lawlessness cannot be allowed to continue, or it will spread. It happens every time.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    10. Re:This is fucking retarded. by elucido · · Score: 1

      We have people who are killing others. They are bombing innocents. They are threatening the security of the free World. And they are eluding authorities.

      But God forbid you attack some Big Corps website and *gasp* force their website down! Then there's a HUGE manhunt to get those criminals!

      Every one of these "law enforcement" officials should get a swift kick in the ass and their priorities straightened out.

      Maybe if they weren't such dumbasses they would be more concerned about actually getting evidence of criminal activity.

      Anonymous could get the police agencies on their side. All they have to do is provide evidence that people in those big corporations are criminals.

    11. Re:This is fucking retarded. by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You aren't even following your own thoughts to their logical conclusions.

      So whenever we have manpower to spare for other things, it should be diverted to more serious crimes. That's what you're claiming -- I'm not even significantly changing your wording. Can you really not see that the ONLY possible outcome of that approach is having literally 100% of resources focused on whatever the single worst crime is? That until that outcome is reached, you can ALWAYS complain that we should take resources away from lesser crimes and focus them on worse ones?

      Look, if you think hacking and piracy should be legal, come out and say it. Don't put forward these facile arguments that society is incapable of enforcing multiple laws at once.

    12. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you post is stupid, precisely because you are unable to intuit what he really means.

    13. Re:This is fucking retarded. by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't assign every police officer to murder cases and let cases of car theft go uninvestigated, do you? You don't spend all of your resources going after counterfeiters and ignore the guy stealing social security checks from peoples' mailboxes.

      No, but neither do you assign 1000% more funding to the social security check thieves than the anti-counterfeiting squad, and spend time training up all ten times more people to perform the former function than the latter.

      Yes, those particular officers aren't interchangeable. That doesn't mean anti-piracy tunnel-vision isn't an endemic problem in US law enforcement.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    14. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      You don't assign every police officer to murder cases and let cases of car theft go uninvestigated, do you? You don't spend all of your resources going after counterfeiters and ignore the guy stealing social security checks from peoples' mailboxes.

      No, but neither do you assign 1000% more funding to the social security check thieves than the anti-counterfeiting squad, and spend time training up all ten times more people to perform the former function than the latter.

      Yes, those particular officers aren't interchangeable. That doesn't mean anti-piracy tunnel-vision isn't an endemic problem in US law enforcement.

      What does LulzSec prosecutions have to do with anti-piracy? They weren't arrested for uploading music, they were arrested for hacking websites.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    15. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the resources that go into stopping a crime should be partly based on the severity of the crime. Billions of dollars shouldn't go into stopping something minor like speeding 5 miles an hour over the speed limit even if such is technically illegal. There is a grey line between good speed limits and bad ones. Most can agree that there should be speed limits, some may differ on exactly where they should be and while most might agree that people who break the law should be punished, it's reasonable to argue that not too much money and effort should go into punishing those who go five miles an hour over the speed limit.

      To the extent that infringing on someone's copy protections is against the law, it should only be a tort and not a crime and I consider it a tort less severe than the crime of going five miles an hour over the speed limit. IOW, we are spending a disproportionate amount of effort and resources trying to enforce laws who's very existing is even questionable just to protect corporate profits at public expense and I would rather less resources go into enforcing these laws and more into stopping crimes with actual victims.

      and there is nothing wrong with someone, or with citizens in general, deciding how they want their taxpayer money spent and with them prioritizing how much money and effort should be put into stopping each crime or tort. If I, as a taxpayer, decide that we are spending way too much on enforcing IP laws I have that right and there is nothing illogical or unreasonable about doing so because I pay taxes and I have a right to express what I want my government spending my taxpayer money on and how I want them prioritizing it.

      and the punishment for infringement should fit the tort, it should be minor assuming that infringement should even be illegal at all.

    16. Re:This is fucking retarded. by ediron2 · · Score: 1

      Following your own thoughts to their logical conclusion' seems to me to be your way of pulling off a bogus 'slippery slope' argument.

      Commensurate response is what GP (or is it GGGP) was after.

      Apprehending a hacker with no violent criminal priors shouldn't require helicopters AND swat teams.

      Likewise, I won't complain as much if the current crop of Wall Street robber barons survive their day in court without a conviction. I'm just not fine with them not getting arrested or tried, despite incriminating evidence.

      Justice is only fair when it's blindly/dispassionately applied.

    17. Re:This is fucking retarded. by icebraining · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, piracy is a problem for the Navy, not the FBI, so I don't see how is that relevant.

    18. Re:This is fucking retarded. by whoop · · Score: 1

      No, but if Anonymous/Lulzsec put their efforts to good use, they could cure cancer and every other ailment to life...

    19. Re:This is fucking retarded. by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      Do most states even have actual speed limits? In my state, there are "speed limit" signs with numbers on them posted through the road system, but the actual state code uses language that suggests otherwise - the actual law is that drivers must drive at "reasonable and prudent" speeds, and that exceeding the posted limit is "prima facie" evidence of violation.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    20. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In California it is a violation to exceed the posted speed limit.

      http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/speed_limits.htm

      That link used to say

      "You may never legally drive faster than the posted speed limit, even if you think it is safe."

      Though now it says

      "Driving faster than the posted speed limit or driving faster than safe for current conditions on any road is dangerous and illegal."

      Chances are, if you looked it up, the same is true for your state.

    21. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      you seem to forget something.

      Justice is blind, but she loves the smell of money.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    22. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well then the lesson seams to be if you are gaming the systems then aim for billions then in most cases you are not going to get punished :)

    23. Re:This is fucking retarded. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Nope. What I meant to imply was that if we don't gain enough from stopping the crime, and if the crime hardly does any damage to begin with, then perhaps we shouldn't spend so much time, effort, and money trying to stop it.

      Example: copyright infringement. Almost impossible to stop, little gain (if any) from doing so, little damage (if any) caused by it, and trying to prevent it by taking down entire websites is usually very costly (look how long it took to take down Megaupload) and causes collateral damage.

    24. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you take armed policemen and helicopters away from anti-gang work to focus them all on kidnapping cases, the gangs are going to thrive. If you take armed policemen and helicopters away from arresting people accused of copyright violation, you can still arrest them with a pair of polite "step this way please, sir" policemen. You know, the way that most white-collar criminals are arrested.

    25. Re:This is fucking retarded. by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I think there are more people involved in busting a kid for copyright violations than the teams used with bringing down OBL.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    26. Re:This is fucking retarded. by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Society is incapable of enforcing multiple laws at once. The LEOs themselves have said as much.

      And yes, the more serious crimes should be dealt with before the minor ones. The ones (in descending seriousness) being ones involving the loss of life, liberty, then property. Priorities, lets get some.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    27. Re:This is fucking retarded. by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we are going about this the wrong way.

      From now on, all wanna-be hackers need to sport .50 AWMs (loaded with armor-piercing rounds) and C4 minefields. If they (the various authorities abusing their power, hitherto known as "Betty") are not willing to show some restraint, perhaps the hackers need to level up their game to match the level of force employed.

      The FBI Director's daily drive to his office should be as hazardous as a trip through some of the worse neighborhoods during the height of the war in Iraq.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    28. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      "You don't assign every police officer to murder cases and let cases of car theft go uninvestigated, do you? "

      So I can pull all the cops off of the murder cases to take down a serial jay walker?

      Hey, Sarge! I need all the helicopter units, Yeah screw that missing child search, I got a hacker!

      I'll agree with you when they stop being corporate enforcement puppets.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    29. Re:This is fucking retarded. by metacell · · Score: 1

      You aren't even following your own thoughts to their logical conclusions.

      So whenever we have manpower to spare for other things, it should be diverted to more serious crimes.

      Maybe not divert ALL resources to the most serious crime, but divert resources in proportion to the severity.

      I also think piracy should be legalised, and hacking should still be illegal.

    30. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Xest · · Score: 1

      So you're saying we should ensure the authorities go after every crime? really?

      Well here's news, that doesn't happen. Many laws go untouched unless the police happen upon the crime by chance - certainly they don't devote resources to them specifically, because people realise they're ridiculous.

      Your implication seems to be that it's okay for the odd rape, murder, or even burglary to go unpunished or unprevented for the sake of not really having any effect beyond a symbolic gesture in the fight against filesharing.

      That strikes me as a little odd, I don't think anyone should have to suffer something like rape or murder because the police were instead expending resources on file sharing simply for the sake of reasserting the view that it's illegal - something everyone engaging in it already knows, but simply doesn't care about.

      The fact is some crimes being illegal is enough to put some off alone, leaving others to continue not caring about the legality of it - it doesn't mean they have to be enforced with any serious amount of manpower, nor does it mean it has to be legalised. The world isn't as black and white as you seem to mistakenly believe it is, there are many shades of grey inbetween.

    31. Re:This is fucking retarded. by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Have fun trying to by a house or get a professional job while someone is screwing with your credit because they charged thousands of dollars to your credit card "for the lulz."

    32. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but neither do you assign 1000% more funding to the social security check thieves than the anti-counterfeiting squad, and spend time training up all ten times more people to perform the former function than the latter.

      Actually, you do, if social security check thieves (benefits fraudsters over here, I suppose) cost the Treasury more than counterfeiters.

    33. Re:This is fucking retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yes, that was sort of the point. That's why a fairly petty crime was chosen for that example. The point is that law enforcement decisions aren't made on a basis of harm done to citizens, but on harm done to politically influential groups.

  4. You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://th3j35t3r.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/if-i-am-wrong-ill-say-im-wrong-heres-my-apology/

  5. What utterly incompetent tradecraft by mrmeval · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're children going up against people who have been trained to play this game by masters at it. They were nothing until they became a significant irritant and when that happened they ended up under a sledgehammer. It is a most dangerous game where you cannot make a mistake at as your life is at stake. I don't know how badly they will fall but they're tagged now and most likely will be assigned to someone to watch for some time to come.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    1. Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're children going up against people who have been trained to play this game by masters at it. They were nothing until they became a significant irritant and when that happened they ended up under a sledgehammer. It is a most dangerous game where you cannot make a mistake at as your life is at stake. I don't know how badly they will fall but they're tagged now and most likely will be assigned to someone to watch for some time to come.

      And the worst part is these people don't seem at all prepared to get caught and go to jail. Sabu had a child? But he thought it was cool to hack the CIA and DOJ? Maybe he should have thought about what the government would do to his children before he messed with them. Common sense, if you mess with the government they do go after your family and they will treat you like a terrorist.

    2. Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Maybe he should have thought about what the government would do to his children before he messed with them.

      It's rather frightening how you seem to consider the government dragging his children into this a reasonable consequence of hacking.

    3. Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft by elucido · · Score: 1

      > Maybe he should have thought about what the government would do to his children before he messed with them.

      It's rather frightening how you seem to consider the government dragging his children into this a reasonable consequence of hacking.

      The consequences could be worse. He and his children are still alive.

      Whether you consider it frightening or not, reality is what it is, the governments are ruthless in these situations. Anyone who thinks they will hack the DOJ or CIA and not provoke this sort of reaction is just naive.

    4. Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even just "locking up their dad in prison" would be pretty bad for his children...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      I think they're very young and very naive I vaguely remember being that naive and reckless though I never had that level of skill with software. I can't say the FBI treated them any differently as in the past but a lot of barriers on government actions have been wrecked and a bureaucrat can command a whole lot of power.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    6. Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      It is frightening that many assume they could be harmed because of their connection to him over and above the normal consequence to a family when a member is accused/convicted of a crime.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    7. Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      > Maybe he should have thought about what the government would do to his children before he messed with them.

      It's rather frightening how you seem to consider the government dragging his children into this a reasonable consequence of hacking.

      I don't think he meant that it was a 'reasonable' consequence. I think he meant it was an 'expected' consequence. And it was. And Sabu is a shitty father for not considering it.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    8. Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft by tzanger · · Score: 1

      Not at all. If you have kids you put their best interests ahead of your own pie-in-the-sky hacking and defacement, especially when it's "for the lulz." This guy had absolutely no business doing what he was doing if the was responsible for those kids. This isn't a guy who's out to change the world for the better. He's not righting any wrongs. He's doing it "for the lulz." Remember that.

    9. Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft by metacell · · Score: 1

      And I thought the government had to follow the law, and only the people who actually committed a crime could get punished for it.

      If the government can mess with people because they choose to, then the checks on the government aren't working properly.

  6. Story time by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A bit of time ago, I met a man who was very good at computer and physical security. He works now as a consultant for a local law enforcement agency; They bring him in for high tech crimes that are beyond their resources to crack. I know I'm being a bit short on details here, but bear with me. Anyway, he became a consultant because in his earlier life, he had gotten into some financial hardship and made a couple poor judgement calls, as seems to happen so often to otherwise highly intelligent people. Well, part of that contract was that he had to work for some unsavory folk helping them bypass security. That group of individuals then graduated from protection racket and simple ID theft to clearing out a dozen floors of a skyscraper under cover of darkness.

    The police didn't know what to do, and they didn't make it public because the enormity of the crime would have rocked the downtown financial district. Now my friend didn't want to be doing this forever, but he was rather stuck -- because now that the crimes were done, he was a liability, but at the same time, an asset to the organization he worked for. He knew it was only a matter of time before the liability side of the equation exceeded his usefulness and they ended him.

    So he did what anyone would do: He asked for help. Not straight out. Not directly, because he was under surveillance all the time by his "friends". So he started leaving clues. Misplaced equipment that would, say, print out his initials over and over again when found later at the crime scene. Subtle things. But enough that law enforcement got the idea that someone was trying to say "help me get out."

    Eventually, without his testimony being needed, they were able to piece together the bread crumb trail and nail the entire criminal organization in one sweep. He had to do time of course, but after only a year or so, they let him out on a very generous probation on one condition: Help them solve other crimes too complex for them to deal with.

    Now there was no movie ever made about this guy, no book deals, nothing. But he's not the first, he surely won't be the last, and I think it would behoove you people to consider that these people might have wanted to get caught. Sometimes people just get tired. Sometimes they have a change of heart. Sometimes they find out that it was all fun and games until they found out who was writing the paycheck. These "security researchers" are more than likely ex-members of similar organizations that are doing the same thing for the lulzsec people that someone else once did for them: Extradite them from a situation they've gotten too far into.

    So people, just remember: You may have their names. It's almost assured you do not have their story.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Story time by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      I take your story at face value, but remember that the things they're known for doing are hacking for fun and political attention-grabbing. Presumably they could have just stopped. I guess they might have felt pressure about having a proverbial damocles sword above their heads for years to come?

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    2. Re:Story time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So he did what anyone would do: He asked for help. Not straight out. Not directly, because he was under surveillance all the time by his "friends". So he started leaving clues. Misplaced equipment that would, say, print out his initials over and over again when found later at the crime scene. Subtle things. But enough that law enforcement got the idea that someone was trying to say "help me get out."

      No offense but that sounds like complete crap. How many initials are we talking about here? Two? Three? It's stupid. Anyone doing stuff like this would increase massively their chance of being considered a liability without actually helping themselves at all. Their surveilance didn't pick up on the weird stuff he was doing, rigging equipment to print his intitials, but would have noticed if he'd put a letter in the post? WTF?

    3. Re:Story time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please stop making up stories that you think will illustrate some point or opinion you have.

    4. Re:Story time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A bit of time ago, I learnt that no clever criminal tells true stories of their past to their acquaintances, especially not ones prone to repeat said stories online.

      Either you're full of shit or your "man" is.

    5. Re:Story time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Utter and complete nonsense - aka - cool story bro^H^H^H^H ho

      Do your attention whoring elsewhere.

    6. Re:Story time by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      The conclusion from this story is that the government could be forcing captured members of anonymous into their own evil (yes I said evil, I can't believe it either) plans.

      Here we have an activist group exposing the extramarital relation of government and big banks and surveillance business and the police's only reaction is to go after those who exposed the problem, and now we have forced labor under treat against public interests, how is that not evil?

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    7. Re:Story time by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The story is pretty good. I'd make a movie script out of it.

      Ok, it's not good. But better than the average movie script today, so I guess you'd have a chance.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Story time by msobkow · · Score: 1

      At least you posted this under an account instead of an Anonymous Coward.

      Now to peruse your post history and see whether I tend to agree or disagree with you before I decide whether to take your statement at face value or not.

      Not that I'll bother posting what I decide. Just saying I appreciate you making that possible -- it lends credence to your statement.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    9. Re:Story time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think my sarcasm detector must be on the blink. On the one hand, while I can imagine someone taking a position that basically comes down to whether they believe an implausible story depends on whether they tend to agree with the person telling it, it's hard to believe that someone could actually straight out say so without seeing how absurd that is. So you must be being sarcastic. But on the other hand, I don't see anyone who is taking anything like that position, so who would you be being sarcastic at? And your last sentence sounds sincere - it's just that it can't be.

    10. Re:Story time by elucido · · Score: 1

      The conclusion from this story is that the government could be forcing captured members of anonymous into their own evil (yes I said evil, I can't believe it either) plans.

      Here we have an activist group exposing the extramarital relation of government and big banks and surveillance business and the police's only reaction is to go after those who exposed the problem, and now we have forced labor under treat against public interests, how is that not evil?

      The conclusion from this story is that the government could be forcing captured members of anonymous into their own evil (yes I said evil, I can't believe it either) plans.

      Here we have an activist group exposing the extramarital relation of government and big banks and surveillance business and the police's only reaction is to go after those who exposed the problem, and now we have forced labor under treat against public interests, how is that not evil?

      Forced labor? Explain?

      Still Anonymous hasn't exposed shit. When they released documented they didn't expose any crimes or human rights abuses. Also they were stupid about it, they didn't send the documents to the UN, instead they put it on the internet.

      Fine, exposing it to the world makes sense in theory but if they are going to expose actual abuses well the State Dept cables didn't expose any abuses. I didn't see anything in there about genocide, torture, or criminal activity from government officials. I didn't see anything in the bank release which the IRS could actually use to start an investigation.

      Anonymous is just an umbrella organization, too large, no focus, and infiltrated by teenage script kiddie criminal types like these LulzSec people. If you think they have exposed criminal activity or human rights abuses and you can show me then show that. If you can show me something they've exposed which the FBI, IRS, UN or any global police institution can use then show me there. Show me the evidence that their hacking activities has produced of crimes.

    11. Re:Story time by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Sarcastic?

      Not at all. I'm stating the obvious: that the only evidence there is any truth to what the poster is saying is their own post history, and the gut judgement as to whether that history warrants being taken seriously, or blown off as someone prone to bullshitting.

      I did a fair bit of reading before deciding, and left a comment tag a few days into the post history to show I did indeed do some reading. Something about Microsoft having a Star Trek Movie OS, with every second release sucking. :)

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    12. Re:Story time by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      When it's past the statute of limitations, speaking details is still stupid to reveal, but technique is not. If information can keep a curious kid from getting ass raped by the system, that is a good thing.

      Problem is most of the kids today wont listen.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Story time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I caught that too. I guess that's why it was called "Story Time".

    14. Re:Story time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well would you consider that head of the FED is full of shit, now look up online what a few drinks and some serious stress can result in.

    15. Re:Story time by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Their surveilance didn't pick up on the weird stuff he was doing, rigging equipment to print his intitials, but would have noticed if he'd put a letter in the post? WTF?

      So how would you get a message to the authorities, had you been in his situation? I eagerly await your response, knowing full well you'd have to do the same thing.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    16. Re:Story time by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When it's past the statute of limitations, speaking details is still stupid to reveal, but technique is not. If information can keep a curious kid from getting ass raped by the system, that is a good thing.

      A good observation unfortunately lost to this crowd. They all imagine themselves to be capable of being criminal masterminds, and think that it's only "stupid" people that get caught, and other self-deluding beliefs. And in either event, nobody seems to have noticed that I pointed out the person in question here did, in fact, get busted. Guilty. Convicted. There's no reason left to lie, and given that I have met this person in real life, at a real police station, with real suspects, and seen real evidence sitting on his very real desk, all the admonishments of the wannabe intellectual crowd here on slashdot means nothing to me. They're too into themselves to realize that most criminal activity doesn't happen for the reasons they think it does. I've talked to this person's coworkers; They just as often feel bad for the person they're dragging in for questioning as not -- not because they think he's innocent, but because they can understand why he did what they're charging him with. But a crime is a crime, you know... and everybody has a story. It doesn't change the fact they have a job to do, and the reasons for doing it really just do not matter.

      That's all I wanted to point out about the lulzsec members: There's probably a story here that's quite different than what's known or being published. Only very rarely does the media get the full story at the time of arrest. Hell, even after a conviction, there's usually a lot of unanswered questions. If they've managed to stay ahead of law enforcement for this long, there's a reason for that even if we don't know it. And there's a reason they're being brought in now too, and I'm pretty sure we don't know that reason either. But... I can offer my experience and knowledge here and suggest that, whatever lulzsec was publicly, privately there was probably organized criminal activity that was creating profit for someone... and these arrests are probably just the tip of a much larger iceberg. Doing it "for the lulz" has got to be one of the stupidest reasons for organized crime I've ever heard and I'm really disappointed anyone here believes that.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    17. Re:Story time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's fucking retarded. Go to the store, (did they bring him his food) or any other suitably public, yet private place, and call the police. Hell, buy a cell phone or use the employed phone.

      Here's another idea, did they follow him everywhere? how well would they follow him if he drove directly to the police station and walked in? Or since he's doing shit on the computer they don't understand, just email them.

      There are over 100 different, less retarded ways to do this.

    18. Re:Story time by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Bullsh*t. Nice story, but bullsh*t.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    19. Re:Story time by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Their surveilance didn't pick up on the weird stuff he was doing, rigging equipment to print his intitials, but would have noticed if he'd put a letter in the post?

      That's the problem with street thugs these days, always playing with printers and other office gear, running diagnostics and what not, when they could be smoking a joint and listening to tunes.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    20. Re:Story time by In+hydraulis · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't.

      I enjoyed the story as is. What more could you possibly add by turning it into a movie? A teary scene where the hacker hugs his lil' boy and says, "Don't worry Johnny, Daddy's gonna bring home some food tonight! And a DVD! You wanna watch a DVD with me tonight, Johnny?"

      Or perhaps some piecing together of oh-so-subtle clues NCIS-style, complete with the strangely lovable goth-girl investigator. Or perhaps a classic mad, ageing German scientist lifted straight from 80s' B-grade flicks. Or both, even.

      And maybe throw in a UNIX system. I know those.

    21. Re:Story time by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      It is a film plot, with a slight difference.

      Catch Me If You Can is the dramatisation of the story of Frank Abignale Jr, who forged cheques and socially engineered his way into airline cockpits, hospital wards as a doctor, and even law courts as a barrister. Aside from starting point (assisting organised crime for this guy, grand larceny for Mr Abignale) the story is the same; Get caught, do some time, become a high paid consultant for TLAs and the private sector.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    22. Re:Story time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how would you get a message to the authorities, had you been in his situation? I eagerly await your response, knowing full well you'd have to do the same thing.

      Really, what the other guy said. Write up a letter and mail it.

      q
      Considering that people mail stuff all the time (bills, etc), it isn't that suspicious. It would be easy enough to go down to the post office with a package to be mailed, and give them a handful of mail you'd just happen to have. Or drop it off in an anonymous post office box. Or heck, just ask a business to mail a letter for your while you are there for something else.

      It takes less time to mail a letter than it would take to rig up equipment.

    23. Re:Story time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... not the AC you asked that question to, but I'll take a stab at it.

      Perhaps 'putting a letter in the post'. Just throwing that out there. Or an email? If he was the psycho-good computer hacker, surely he could have come up with sending an email that isn't seen by those 'watching' him. If he can leave a device that repeately prints his initials that isn't found by the other criminals, he could have just as easily had it instead print 'yo, my name is $name, and I'm stuck in this criminal thing and want out, but they'll kill me if I try. I will help you in any way possible. Don't try contacting me directly or they'll kill me. If you agree to let me help you, have someone in a red shirt and bowler hat stand on the corner of X and Y at exactly Z time on Q date for 3 minutes, take his hat off, wipe his brow, and continue on his way. If I see this, I will find ways of getting info to you."

      Y'know... something actually USEFUL. Initials are meaningless. That's like 'Son of Sam' using that name for his crimes. Didn't exactly help the police, now did it? That wasn't even what got him caught.

    24. Re:Story time by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Hammond was a well known Internet Assclown and convict before the word LulzSec was ever conceived. He lived in a dump (ever been to the South Side? The heavily armed FBI went in sufficiently equipped), and was an anarchist. He didn't care about anything and enjoyed the frenzy that resulted from his shenanigans. I won't shed a tear over the fact that he's likely to be imprisoned for the next 20 years. He didn't "stay ahead of law enforcement," he'd been arrested and imprisoned several times, even on related charges.

      I deal with economic espionage and IP control at $DAYJOB enough that I have various FBI agents in my contacts list on my cell phone, and I'm in theirs. I've established a good rapport with them and we have interesting conversations. Seeing what people will do *knowing* that they could spend 20 years in prison if they are caught is astonishing. What's more astonishing are the reasons. Its not often about the money. Usually its misplaced loyalty, but also ego (for the lulz). Robert Hanssen (a hacker in his own right, but known for being an FBI traitor) is an excellent example of someone who did what he did "for the lulz." He's responsible for immense damage to the US and for the deaths of a lot of people. You know what he had to say when he was arrested?

      "What took you so long?"

      Anyway, just because things look stupid and don't make sense doesn't mean there has to be some conspiracy in the background that explains everything. Occam's razor: some people are just weapons-grade stupid creatures.

  7. Sounds like any other security specialist. by Njovich · · Score: 2

    The things they mention sound just like any other security specialist. How is it obvious from this information they did all this stuff?

  8. Never use a connection which can be traced to you by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember that kids. Its not only servers which log connections. Routers can do it as well. Don't do it from McDonalds because they use CCTV. Steal a connection but try not to leave DNA and only use any given connection once. Don't use a car which can be traced to you either. Don't associate with other hackers because they are probably spies. Don't promote your activities on twitter etc because that makes it too fucking easy for the police to come and get you.

    Also in the summary its supposed to be "plain sight", not "plain site". They are two different words.

  9. The Irish Connection by CanEHdian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't it funny that these two guys in the story, Darren Martyn and Donncha O'Cearbhaill happen to be the ones that are currently not in US custody? Are we already setting the scene for the extradiction process?

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    1. Re:The Irish Connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Luckily for Martyn and Ó Cearall, the Irish Supreme Court just made their extradition—if it were sought by the US or anyone else—a lot more difficult. Last week's Ian Bailey case confirmed that if an Irish citizen (as I assume these two are) commits an act within the State which is a criminal offence under Irish law, they will not be extradited upon request, but rather they will be tried in Ireland. If acquitted, or if the DPP decides there is not enough evidence to prosecute (or decides not to prosecute for any other reason), extradition will still be impossible. That case concerned the European Arrest Warrant, but I didn't detect anything in the judgments which wouldn't also apply to any other extradition system.

  10. This is what happens when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... morons try to live 2 lives at once, they slip-up and reveal stuff, slowly, but surely end up identifying their own personal information.

    Actors would work so much better at hackers, they'd be capable of keeping up the act long enough without crossing personas too much, if at all.
    Well, I say actors, the few ones who are actually good and not the ones who appear to be good, but had to do 15 retakes of small scenes, hidden behind camera trickery and scene splicing.

    I'm surprised Sabu even got caught, he seems to be as equally a dick off and online. But I guess his dickishness was also too much of a risktaker and messed up. One tiny screwup can destroy everything.

    Hope they enjoy small spaces.

    1. Re:This is what happens when... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      They got caught because they had a publicity department. They wanted the public to know what was going on. I don't think it is that hard to live a double life as long as you want to keep an aspect of your life secret.

  11. Dump summery by Weezul · · Score: 5, Informative

    LulzSec were their own hacker group operating under their own name to bolder their own egos. Please don't conflate them with Anonymous.

    LulzSec shared some aims and humor with Anonymous, but they always wanted to be identified. And that egotism helped get them caught.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    1. Re:Dump summery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LulzSec were their own hacker group operating under their own name to bolder their own egos. Please don't conflate them with Anonymous.

      LulzSec shared some aims and humor with Anonymous, but they always wanted to be identified. And that egotism helped get them caught.

      *deep, annoyed sigh* Yes, yes, Anonymous is nobody and everybody, and anybody can take on the title of Anonymous and Anonymous is an idea and a movement and not a group. All until they get caught or do something you disagree with. Then, holy shit, but they sure as hell get a concise, clear definition which we're all DAMN sure those clumsy, irresponsible bad guys AREN'T.

    2. Re:Dump summery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, but, but... anyone can be Anonymous!

      Therefore, Lulzsec could be both Lulzsec and Anonymous at the same time!

    3. Re:Dump summery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous are a bunch of douche-nozzles as well.

  12. The problem is thinking. They though. . . by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    tEy VV4Z 3Lee7e.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  13. Comply or Die. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    Comply or Die. Dont dare to change the system or the system will erase you.

    1. Re:Comply or Die. by elucido · · Score: 2

      Comply or Die. Dont dare to change the system or the system will erase you.

      Yes just like in the Soviet Union or in the USA during the 60s.

    2. Re:Comply or Die. by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Oh, the system can change, but it prefers that you change instead.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  14. Re:Send them to Gitmo... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    What for?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. The price to pay. by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

    God bless those freedom fighers. May this arrest teach the others to burrow a bit deeper next time.

  16. Knock Knock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. ___insert name here___...
    It seems that you've been living two lives.
    In one life, you're ____insert name here____, program writer for a respectable software company. You have a social security number, you pay your taxes, and you... help your landlady carry out her garbage.
    The other life is lived in computers, where you go by the hacker alias ___insert pseudonym here___ and are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for. One of these lives has a future. The other does not.

    Prepare to hear this more and more.

  17. elite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they had such difficulty, over a course of years, bringing these highly vocal people to justice... it makes one wonder if they
    even realize when a truly malicious and silent enemy compromises their networks. I mean, if these folks didn't deface sites and post their loot, would the az police or others even know? Probably not. So your law enforcement is proud of.catching what they'll now call. "Less than competent" vandals. Ok. What about the REAL threat? Going to catch any of them?

  18. Anonymity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to maintain anonymity, change your identity often.

    It is harder to justify going after a guy who (apparently) has stopped his activities months ago.

    Dont be googleable is another thing, do not choose a name that can be googled easily. If your nickname is "Water" you bet you wont be the first thing to come up when googled.

    One slip up is all it takes people.

  19. Law has nothing to do with ethics. by elucido · · Score: 2

    "It's about laws and ethics, and people have to determine whether they want to follow the speed limit, follow the law," Thomas Brennan, who is a director of OWASP's parent group, told Reuters. "We have the same skill set as the bad guys, but the only difference is ethics."

    The law is about morality. It's ethical to break the law provided you have no possibility of getting caught or paying the consequences. It only becomes unethical when the consequences outweigh the benefits. Morality isn't about the consequences of following a certain law, morality is about what you are conditioned to do based on trends, religion, tradition.

    Anyone can be moral. Simply do exactly what society expects you to do and no more. To be ethical however requires you to do what produces the best consequences for yourself AND for society. John Nash proved this already so it's not really up for debate as the math of game theory is out there. Ethics are calculations to produce the best consequences, or to produce equilibrium while morals might produce terrible consequences for society and even for the individual in the long term.

    So let me make it simple, being moral allows you to have a life where you never have to worry about going to prison because you'll never break the law. You'll never rebel against authority so there is less of a chance that authority will crack down on you. The consequence is you sacrifice your personal opinions and feelings in order to adapt to the rules of society. You become a robot of society in exchange for being moral.

    Most people are moral, few people are ethical, and fewer are both ethical and moral. I try to be ethical and moral. Meaning I wont break the law because I don't want to go to jail, but I don't decide right and wrong based on the law because the law doesn't protect me all the time and I've got to protect myself.

    1. Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Wow. What dictionary do you use?

      My dictionary (Funk & Wagnalls) gives about a dozen definitions for moral and 3 for ethical, and there's very little to distinguish one from the other (ethics seems to be a bit more technical).

      Anyone can be moral. Simply do exactly what society expects you to do and no more.

      So in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia morality consisted of snitching on your neighbors. In modern "liberal democracies" it consists of living on the dole.

      Actual morality (and ethics) in its highest form consists of striving to become a great person; to be someone who would have been considered honorable by Plutarch.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. by elucido · · Score: 1

      Wow. What dictionary do you use?

      My dictionary (Funk & Wagnalls) gives about a dozen definitions for moral and 3 for ethical, and there's very little to distinguish one from the other (ethics seems to be a bit more technical).

      Anyone can be moral. Simply do exactly what society expects you to do and no more.

      So in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia morality consisted of snitching on your neighbors. In modern "liberal democracies" it consists of living on the dole.

      Actual morality (and ethics) in its highest form consists of striving to become a great person; to be someone who would have been considered honorable by Plutarch.

      Morals aren't based on science. Morals are based on what feels right, or based on religion, or based on what is or isn't legal.

      Ethics (consequentialist ethics) are based on what can be determined to produce the best consequences. You win a war by applying ethical strategies. Game theory is ethics, business involves ethics, winning a competition and pursuing self interest involves ethics.

      You can be a moral person and be completely unethical if your morality is deontological. The 10 commandments are an example of deontological morality. You can make everyone in society Christian and force them into a universal morality. There is no universal ethics. Ethics are completely subjective while morality CAN be subjective OR it can be deontological. Meaning there are forms of morality which are irrational, which don't produce good consequences or desirable results, but which are what is written in the old book, or that which are traditions, or that which is the law.

      Consequence based ethics is only concerned with the science of making the most rational decision in any given situation. When lives are at stake and you have to figure out how to save the maximum amount of lives morality doesn't help, only ethics can help here. When you have to kill one to save a few only ethics can help. When you have to hurt one to protect yourself and others ethics are in operation here.

      Morality doesn't have anything to do with actually being a good person. Morality is all about looking like a good person in the eyes of the law and to the church. You can be a shitty person but if you go to church every Sunday and you don't break the law you'll be considered a moral person.You could be a complete sociopath and be considered a moral person but you cannot be an ethical sociopath because ethics aren't as simple as a list of commandments or a list of laws, the ethicalness of a situation is determined entirely by the set of circumstances and it's impossible to predict in advance what situations you'll face so a true ethical leader is someone who can make the necessary calculations to determine how their decision will affect themselves and everyone.

      Many laws in place are moral but not very ethical which is why many people disagree. Ethics are subjective so you can disagree on stuff like copyright infringement, or on the treatment of detainees. For the rights holders who only can put their children through college because of the current copyright law they will do everything they can to convince a young kid who doesn't own any copyrights that copyright infringement is stealing and is somehow unethical. In reality it might be ethical for that kid in that situation. What about photoshop? It might be ethical for that kid to pirate photoshop to accomplish some important goal for themselves, but it wont be ethical for photoshop because the kid isn't paying them.

      In reality ethics are just about making the best possible decisions. Risk vs benefit of doing something. And in the case of these sorts of hackers they ruined their lives but did they save any lives? What did they sacrifice themselves for really? I think their approach wasn't what I would consider moral or ethical in the case of Lulzsec as I don't agree with their cause or with their methods of achieving their cause as their methods are horribly ine

    3. Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      What feels right is based on evolutionary psychology; human nature as determined by the physiology of the brain. Religion has nothing to do with it. Morality is all science of the structure of the human brain. Religion is just another way of expressing this structure.

    4. Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. by elucido · · Score: 1

      What feels right is based on evolutionary psychology; human nature as determined by the physiology of the brain. Religion has nothing to do with it. Morality is all science of the structure of the human brain. Religion is just another way of expressing this structure.

      Or it could be the opposite. Religion conditions the brain to rewire itself which changes psychology. If all the people who thought differently or who had a different psychology were killed off by the church or didn't reproduce then this would explain it. How likely are prisoners to reproduce?

    5. Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. by elucido · · Score: 1

      What feels right is based on evolutionary psychology; human nature as determined by the physiology of the brain. Religion has nothing to do with it. Morality is all science of the structure of the human brain. Religion is just another way of expressing this structure.

      Another flaw in your argument, you ignore the fact that if you put an animal into a skinner box you can change it's psychology. You can condition a rat to feel a certain way when a certain tone is played. You can condition dogs to feel a certain way after a certain stimulus. This is fact and if this is true then it explains the purpose of religion and law.

      You can say capitalism is evolution too but it doesn't change the fact that different forms of capitalism influence the evolution of the human species via mate selection as well as the evolution of many other species. The impact of the crusades with regard to the church, the impact of the law with regard to behavior.

      It's conditioning. Put people into a different environment and they wont feel the same way about the same things. So what I'm saying is anything can be made to feel right. Dogs can be made to feel right when they hear something. Humans can be made to feel good or bad by classical conditioning. This is why moral feelings are conditioned responses and don't always lead to good results for the host.

    6. Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "The law is about morality." It has not been about that for centuries. Maybe that is what they taught you in Grade school but in reality it is very different.

      The law is about power. Laws give others power over the masses. outside of a small subset of 7 true laws, everything else is about control and power.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. by lightknight · · Score: 1

      The law is about maintaining the positions of the people in power. Hence all rebellions and uprisings are illegal.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    8. Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Moral behaviours like altruism are universal in the human species regardless of their cultural background.

      Your argument lacks credence.

  20. Well then they goofed up. by elucido · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And there is nothing more to say about it.

    Let me make something clear to any would be members of these groups or individuals who think hackers are cool. If you are a hacker expect to go to jail. Don't protest or do anything which isn't worth going to jail for. Most of the hacks these individuals participated in were not the sort of stuff that in hindsight they will believe was worth sacrificing their life for.

    These individuals may not be physically dead but they have no future, no career. The rumored snitch Sabu has it the worst because if what they say about him is true he's not going to be accepted in the criminal or police world so he's fucking gone.

    LulzSec always seemed like a dumbass group. I'm not a big fan of the whole AntiSec agenda, and I don't think LulzSec can be compared to Anonymous. LulzSec was not defending human rights in any way, while at least with Anonymous you have people who believe in something other than lulz.

    1. Re:Well then they goofed up. by Xest · · Score: 1

      "These individuals may not be physically dead but they have no future, no career."

      Agreed, it's not like any hackers have ever ended up with a decent standard of living and career, or alternative have never failed to make a name for themselves.

      Kevin Mitnick lives in a damp cardboard box in some backstreet, Adrian Lamo thinks downtown Mogadishu would be a better place to be than where he is now, and no one has ever even heard of Julian Assange.

      If Lulzsec did one thing, it was to bring attention to the fact that big vested government and corporate interests are not invulnerable, they can be embarassed as badly as any private citizen can by any teen sat in his/her bedroom who has simply had enough of the status quo to the point they're past caring about the consequences.

      They may have been childish, foolish, egoistical, but they made far more of an impact in making their point that they're fed up of the status quo than anyone whining on Slashdot ever has.

  21. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by elucido · · Score: 0

    Remember that kids. Its not only servers which log connections. Routers can do it as well. Don't do it from McDonalds because they use CCTV. Steal a connection but try not to leave DNA and only use any given connection once. Don't use a car which can be traced to you either. Don't associate with other hackers because they are probably spies. Don't promote your activities on twitter etc because that makes it too fucking easy for the police to come and get you.

    Also in the summary its supposed to be "plain sight", not "plain site". They are two different words.

    They just aren't/weren't that smart. But thats not all but most of them are probably pussies who when arrested aren't prepared to go to jail so they become snitches.

  22. Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by elucido · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And it doesn't require pissing off the feds. You can protest in a smart way or in a dumb way and many of Anonymous choose the dumb way with dumb consequences. If they are going to be political freedom fighters, warriors, then they will have to act like warriors and think like warriors.

    Young people need to be educated so they know when they get involved with these groups it's like getting involved with a mafia or terrorist organization. Their life is changed forever, many of them might not survive it, those who do could have their life destroyed in all kinds of ways, basically it's young people sacrificing their future.

    LulzSec in my opinion were sacrificing their future for dumb reasons. Was it worth going to jail over? Now they are useless to society and can't do shit.

    1. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by bug1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And it doesn't require pissing off the feds. You can protest in a smart way or in a dumb way

      So tell us, what is the smart way to protest online ?

      Unfortunately any online action does involve 'pissing off' authorities, because they have made everything that hurts them illegal.

      Why is a DDOS illegal, how is different that a RL protest outside a shop/factory ?

      If they are going to be political freedom fighters, warriors, then they will have to act like warriors and think like warriors

      So you are advocating violence as the smart way to protest ?

      FAIL !

    2. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends how the DDOS is made. If a million people simultaneously send an email to the shop/factory describing their displeasure, then it's legal. If ten people use a network of a million infected PCs to bring down the shop/factory's web server, it's illegal.

      If a thousand people protest outside a shop/factory, it's legal. If two people block the entrance to the shop/factory by putting their own padlock on the door/gate, it's illegal.

    3. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by kodr · · Score: 1

      You don't protest by breaking the shop, that's what looters do.

    4. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by MarkvW · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm kind of tired of all the juvenile whining. A bunch of stupid juvenile copycat vandals are not going to accomplish anything positive.

      The potential of the Internet for change hasn't even been anywhere near fully explored yet.

    5. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So tell us, what is the smart way to protest online ?

      Unfortunately any online action does involve 'pissing off' authorities, because they have made everything that hurts them illegal.

      I guess creating websites advocating for their position with clever videos, news, and so forth is too much? Discussion forums? Press releases? Blogs? Opinion pieces? Trading links with other like minded sites? Developing issue resource centers? Starting local discussion & action groups. Seeking sponsors to fund them and extend their reach?

      If they wanted to go a little shady, maybe advocacy spam?

      Lots they could do if they were dedicated without DDOS, cracking, and stealing credit card numbers.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by lightknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1st Amendment. Just get a copy of a video of them engaging in some wayward action, and upload it to the web. They'll be laughed at for a week, then fired.

      If you want to piss off the (laughable) authorities, just post a copy of their wife engaging in some extramarital affair (happens often enough). They won't be able to touch you, and they'll busy with family problems for the next seven years or so.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    7. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by Raenex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is a DDOS illegal, how is different that a RL protest outside a shop/factory ?

      You can't legally prevent other people from gaining access to the shop/factory with your protest, and that's why a denial of service attack is different.

    8. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by bug1 · · Score: 1

      You can't legally prevent other people from gaining access to the shop/factory with your protest, and that's why a denial of service attack is different.>

      You can legally make it inconvenient for people to gain access, the purpose of picket lines is to force people to confront the issue, they can pass through a picket line, but expect a few insults on the way.

      DDOS is very similar, most dont stop you from getting to the site, they just make it inconvenient, you have to wiat/reload the website a few times and you usually get through.

      There is a fuzzy line in RL protests between legal and illegal protests, however online protest is completely illegal, there needs to be some tolerance for online protests.

      The right to protest is of fundamental importance to our way of life, making it illegal isnt going to make it go away.

    9. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The point of a denial of service attack is to prevent people from getting to the site, whether it's for a few minutes or hours. That's very different from being insulted for crossing a picket line. Nobody is making protest illegal -- there are alternative and legal ways. Two examples are "Bank Transfer Day" and "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day".

    10. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by elucido · · Score: 1

      So tell us, what is the smart way to protest online ?

      Unfortunately any online action does involve 'pissing off' authorities, because they have made everything that hurts them illegal.

      Why is a DDOS illegal, how is different that a RL protest outside a shop/factory ?

      Don't talk about it. Do it. If you talk about it then it ruins the surprise. I'm just saying you don't have to break the law to make a statement. If you want to get more people involved in your movement then some operations should be the kind which don't require people to break the law.

      So you are advocating violence as the smart way to protest ?

      No. Not every warrior is violent and I don't advocate violence. If you turn violent then the opposition will use it as the excuse to use lethal force and they specialize in violence. What is so difficult to understand? Use non violence and don't focus exclusively on illegal activities. If you do break the law then be well aware and make the people involved well aware what the consequences will be. Don't entrap people by telling them that using DDOS is just a protest or that their anonymity online is protected. Tell them the goddamn truth.

      FAIL !

      Tell them the truth. Stop sending people off who don't know what they are doing. Young kids who's lives are ruined before they get started. You should be pissed off about that.

    11. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by elucido · · Score: 1

      Depends how the DDOS is made. If a million people simultaneously send an email to the shop/factory describing their displeasure, then it's legal. If ten people use a network of a million infected PCs to bring down the shop/factory's web server, it's illegal.

      If a thousand people protest outside a shop/factory, it's legal. If two people block the entrance to the shop/factory by putting their own padlock on the door/gate, it's illegal.

      A lot of things are legal which can make your voice heard as much or more than a DDOS attack.

    12. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by elucido · · Score: 2

      If DDOS attacks as a form of protest is leading to prison then maybe it's not a smart way to protest.

    13. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So tell us, what is the smart way to protest online ?

      See SOPA/PIPA blackout protests.

    14. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by nhat11 · · Score: 0

      Why is a DDOS illegal, how is different that a RL protest outside a shop/factory ? Because IRL you're not allow to obstruct people from getting in or out the buildings.

    15. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by biodata · · Score: 0

      By going to jail they have probably significantly enhanced their careers. They will come into contact with all kinds of people who may be interested in hiring their services (Cosmo in Sneakers anyone?), and when they come out they will probably find their notoriety makes it easier to get an interview for a security job. If they had not gone to jail they would probably not have such diverse career options.

      --
      Korma: Good
    16. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      So you are advocating violence as the smart way to protest ?

      FAIL !

      Well.. that's kind of what worked in all the successful protests last year... Egypt, Libya etc...

      On the flip side of the coin look what the non violent Occupy Wall Street protest achieved; nothing. Unless you count the protestors getting a chance to go camping as an achievement.

      I'm not saying I'd participate in a violent protest. I am saying that historically, violent protests achieve results where nonviolent ones do not.

    17. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Their life is changed forever, many of them might not survive it, those who do could have their life destroyed in all kinds of ways, basically it's young people sacrificing their future."

      Doesn't this say something? The fact that kids are now en-masse willing to do this?

      Think it could be related to high levels of youth unemployment? a feeling of being powerless in society?

      Make no mistake, these kids don't care anymore because they have no reason to, governments out of touch with the internet generation coupled with woes relating to the economic downturn have left them with little to care about. It's made an impact - even my rather conservative mother in her 60s is now expressing her anger at government going after kids and allowing them to be extradited for running file sharing link sites when there's other crimes she'd much rather they were spending resources on.

    18. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by Enry · · Score: 1

      True, but Santorum (the online definition), SOPA, and #KONY2012 shows there's a lot of promise.

    19. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protest line backs up traffic and it takes me 20 extra minutes to get to work.
      DDOS takes down site, and I can't view it for 20 minutes or so.

      The only difference I'm seeing here is that one uses more gas.

    20. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are far from being useless to society. These young men (as it seems they were all men) have a nack for finding holes in systems and being both able and capable of exploiting those holes. Ask yourself this...would you have ever been told of the Lulzsec breaches if they had not been made public by the group themselves? In short until people, the average Joe, stands up and demand better personal security and better treatment of our personal data then what Lulzsec did will only be the beginning. This stands to reason because by-and-large there has been no real negative repercussions for the major companies who were breached by Lulzsec. Much of the lost profits have been re-coped over the last year, there did not appear to be any public fines for ignoring warnings from other above-board security researchers who warned these companies of the potential issues they may face. So the short version is as long as these companies are allowed to virtually ignore security and securities best practices it stands to reason that there will be another group or individual just like Lulzsec to fill that void.

      These men should be utilized rather than face the traditional jail-time. We as society are not doing ourselves any favors by throwing these guys in jail for 20 years. What they did is frankly still a real possibility of occurring again today. Instead why not order them to work for the various organizations which they breached and help them correct the issues they exploited.

    21. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If somebody can't get online the typical response is to assume the site is down and go elsewhere. I've also seen protests at stores and had no trouble getting through, and traffic was not backed up. A protest may back up traffic, but you aren't allowed to do so intentionally by blocking the street. Denial of service is explicitly meant to stop service, and that's why it is different.

    22. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be deeply confused. The Arab Spring protestors generally didn't start the violence. The governments trying to suppress the protests did.

      Also, you are just totally wrong about something very important! Historically, nonviolent protests have undeniably gotten results. The 1960s Civil Rights movement in the US, for example. And there's this guy Ghandi you may have heard about.

      Nonviolent protest met with violent opposition can be extremely effective because it gives society as a whole no comfortable excuses along the lines of "oh, those are just thugs, it's a good thing they got beaten down".

    23. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by elucido · · Score: 1

      So you are advocating violence as the smart way to protest ?

      FAIL !

      Well.. that's kind of what worked in all the successful protests last year... Egypt, Libya etc...

      On the flip side of the coin look what the non violent Occupy Wall Street protest achieved; nothing. Unless you count the protestors getting a chance to go camping as an achievement.

      I'm not saying I'd participate in a violent protest. I am saying that historically, violent protests achieve results where nonviolent ones do not.

      Violent protests didn't achieve results in the USA. You're talking about Egypt. The USA has the best law enforcement funding in the world with the best weaponry.

    24. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by elucido · · Score: 1

      You seem to be deeply confused. The Arab Spring protestors generally didn't start the violence. The governments trying to suppress the protests did.

      Also, you are just totally wrong about something very important! Historically, nonviolent protests have undeniably gotten results. The 1960s Civil Rights movement in the US, for example. And there's this guy Ghandi you may have heard about.

      Nonviolent protest met with violent opposition can be extremely effective because it gives society as a whole no comfortable excuses along the lines of "oh, those are just thugs, it's a good thing they got beaten down".

      The civil rights movement was both non-violent and violent. And the end result is both the non-violent and violent sides of the moment got killed off or locked away in prisons, and their children and grand children are still paying the price for that.

    25. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by elucido · · Score: 1

      By going to jail they have probably significantly enhanced their careers. They will come into contact with all kinds of people who may be interested in hiring their services (Cosmo in Sneakers anyone?), and when they come out they will probably find their notoriety makes it easier to get an interview for a security job. If they had not gone to jail they would probably not have such diverse career options.

      Those are movies, this is real life. Sneakers was also based in the 1980s. It's different now.

      If you go to jail you wont have a job waiting for you when you get out. Unless you want to be some sort of police informant. This idea that going to jail enhances peoples careers is as silly as rappers and other artists who think going to jail is good for their careers. It's not good for your career to go to prison and be a felon, if you want to get attention you can go to DefCon or write an academic paper or thesis or create a website. Going to jail is not the answer.

      If you want to be like Cosmo from sneakers then you're talking about being a pen-tester. You need to become a certified ethical hacker by passing an exam and getting the certificate. You don't have to go to jail and going to jail will make it impossible for you to get the money to pay for the certificate in the first place. Also being on probation will put you in the weakest possible bargaining position.

    26. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by elucido · · Score: 1

      "Their life is changed forever, many of them might not survive it, those who do could have their life destroyed in all kinds of ways, basically it's young people sacrificing their future."

      Doesn't this say something? The fact that kids are now en-masse willing to do this?

      Think it could be related to high levels of youth unemployment? a feeling of being powerless in society?

      Make no mistake, these kids don't care anymore because they have no reason to, governments out of touch with the internet generation coupled with woes relating to the economic downturn have left them with little to care about. It's made an impact - even my rather conservative mother in her 60s is now expressing her anger at government going after kids and allowing them to be extradited for running file sharing link sites when there's other crimes she'd much rather they were spending resources on.

      I understand why young people do this and I know the situation is messed up. That is why I said what I said. I cannot say that young people have any realistic options for a better future. At the same time some of these hackers are fairly bright so to lose them behind prison walls and have their lives be rendered worthless is beyond pathetic to me. I see it as wasted potential in the extreme.

      Why aren't old retired workers willing to sacrifice? They've lived their lives and have nothing to lose if they go to jail. They are retired, have made their money. But no it's always expected that the young are to be the martyrs in society and ruin their lives but when that happens then the generation after them are ruined as well. The civil rights movement produced the gang violence, the war on drugs, and the mass incarceration. Where is the support for all the political prisoners of the drug war many of whom are the children and grand children of civil rights activists?

    27. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. by elucido · · Score: 1

      I agree and disagree. I think some of the stuff they did deserves some prison time (though not 20 years). They did financial crime which didn't have any political component. They exposed confidential user information which did not have a political component.

      If you are talking about people who launched a DDOS attack and who are involved in politics then I agree they shouldn't get much time. Their crime was being too passionate about politics and being too young to have the wisdom and rationality to temper it.

  23. Plain sight [Score: 5, but -1 because Soulskill] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "plain sight", not "plain site", like all the -1 comments above.

  24. Re:Send them to Gitmo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    that never stopped anyone from being sent to gitmo...

  25. Anonymous should focus more on getting evidence by elucido · · Score: 2

    Not just dumping random documents of stuff which only functions as PR but actual evidence.

    If the US government is committing war crimes or if some other government is, then produce the evidence and take it to the UN. Even if nothing happens at least the world will know and this sort of activity makes sense. But what LulzSec was doing was not exposing war crimes, or protecting life, or protecting human rights, they were going around stealing credit card information and other really stupid crimes. They were going with this anti-sec f the police mentality.

    There are police who believe in human rights and who have family and children. Anonymous isn't providing any evidence of any illegal activity which the police could use to do anything. If the issue is the police are too corrupt to do anything then where is the evidence of police corruption? Basically Anonymous is breaking laws just to break them and hacking just to hack in many cases.

    And now it seems every protest they do requires some sort of illegal activity. Maybe they'd get more people to support them if not every protest requires DDOS attacks or taking down websites or breaking laws. Some people have a lot to lose, have families, and cannot afford to break the law. Some people are the police, or are in positions of authority.

    1. Re:Anonymous should focus more on getting evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the US government is committing war crimes or if some other government is, then produce the evidence and take it to the UN. Even if nothing happens at least the world will know and this sort of activity makes sense.

      You mean like the invasion of Iraq? You do know that George W. Bush rarely ventures outside the US for fear of being arrested for war crimes, right?

      If the issue is the police are too corrupt to do anything then where is the evidence of police corruption?

      Surf YouTube for an hour, you'll find lots of videos of police beating up and tazering people who showed no sign of aggressiveness.

      I'm not defending Lulz or Anonymous, but please don't insult our intelligence by saying that all we need to do is produce evidence of corruption or crimes by the authorities and the world will put a stop to it.

    2. Re:Anonymous should focus more on getting evidence by elucido · · Score: 1

      If the US government is committing war crimes or if some other government is, then produce the evidence and take it to the UN. Even if nothing happens at least the world will know and this sort of activity makes sense.

      You mean like the invasion of Iraq? You do know that George W. Bush rarely ventures outside the US for fear of being arrested for war crimes, right?

      If the issue is the police are too corrupt to do anything then where is the evidence of police corruption?

      Surf YouTube for an hour, you'll find lots of videos of police beating up and tazering people who showed no sign of aggressiveness.

      I'm not defending Lulz or Anonymous, but please don't insult our intelligence by saying that all we need to do is produce evidence of corruption or crimes by the authorities and the world will put a stop to it.

      That is the sort of stuff they should be focused on. Not hacking credit card numbers.

    3. Re:Anonymous should focus more on getting evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the invasion of Iraq? You do know that George W. Bush rarely ventures outside the US for fear of being arrested for war crimes, right?

      Citation needed for both claims and no your wikipedia link was not relevant. Bush was guilty of horrible policies but unfortunately we reelected him.

  26. Plain SIGHT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's "in plain sight", not "in plain site".

  27. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EVERYBODY RATS.

    It's rule #1.

  28. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by icebraining · · Score: 2

    From what I could tell, they could've avoided being caught by simply keeping their mouth shut and not tell their life story to each other.

  29. Lulzsec Overdrive by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

    They are actually agents of wintermute, recruited in Chiba city, duped into doing the dirty work of an AI on the loose. This is best handled by the Turing authority.

    --
    music lover since 1969
  30. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by elucido · · Score: 1

    EVERYBODY RATS.

    It's rule #1.

    Not to the extent that he did it. You can torture a confession out of anyone but Sabu was actually working FOR the feds not just broken by them. You're right if tortured anyone can be broken given enough time but thats not the same situation.

  31. So they all were N00bs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Honestly, hacking from home is the first thing you learn on the "only idiots do this" hacking guide.

    #2 is keep your meatspace separate from your cyberspace.

    They were n00bs, and got tagged, Just like how Mitnick was pretty much a n00b, he was a moron and got himself caught. Although I'm wondering if they were patsy's set up by the real leaders. Like how the President of Iran really is a worthless meatbag that cant do anything, it's the ayatollah that is the actual leader.

    And FYI: NSA,BATF,HSA spooks. All you found here is an old retired security expert. nothing to see here, move along. I was smart enough to never know anything about any friends that I may or may not have had, and made sure they did not know anything about me. Getting to see the guys get nailed that I may have heard of in the Legion of Doom and the 411's was enough for me to keep my nose clean.

    Basically, I did nothing, nobody saw me do anything, no logs point back at me. Only morons let other hackers know who they really are.

  32. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Routers can do it as well. Don't do it from McDonalds because they use CCTV."

    Um yeah. You have never hacked anything have you.

    McDonalds is awesome. 1 small yagi and I can be hundreds of feet away and connect to the Mickey D's AP and hack away. If you think a "hacker" sits in the restaurant with his trenchcoat and flat black laptop with a silver skull spraypainted on it, you really need to learn about the subject.

    A uber hax0r will have a nice log of open AP's in an area. he also will have a log of WEP AP's and other routers/AP's as well. He then will do some testing to find good low latency connections.

    If he is really good, he will have purchased several sheevaplugs with harmless stickers like "HP Printer" or "ADT security" on them. Gain access to some locations and you plant the box, just plug it in to the wall and network. Small businesses will never notice and most dont have a managed network. Now you just installed a great proxy to go in and out of. Set that sheevaplug up right and it will not only not hold any logs, but erase it's self when the network is unplugged, add a small battery, and it will erase it's self when power is lost.

    The security on most company networks is a joke, a device like I mentioned could go years without detection.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  33. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    All good points and far better than working from their home ADSL lines which is what LulzSec were apparently doing. I hadn't considered using a directional antenna but that would certainly make you harder to find.

  34. "Anonymous's senior leadership" by flimflammer · · Score: 2

    Every time they make this claim, I can't help but giggle.

    1. Re:"Anonymous's senior leadership" by lightknight · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean. It's a cell operation, with no true leadership elements, and the people / the number of people participating at any moment is in constant flux.

      Trying to get that point across to the press is quite trying.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:"Anonymous's senior leadership" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the people / the number of people participating at any moment is in constant flux.

      That's a _stupid_ assumption.

      If you had anonymous gangs of people organizing riots at random street addresses in a city once a weekend, how likely do you think it would be to find no connections between people involved from week to week? But, they have common geography you might say. Well, the Internet is just one big area with the same people in it. With no travel involved, it's easier to show up to more than one event.

      You have to be delusional to think they have random distribution.

  35. GirlInTraining: Gotta say this to you... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you said was truly great... & that's all I have to say about it, no joke or sarcasm.

    * In fact, though I don't know you, & we're just "text people" to one another? You've earned a new found respect from me... that's meant as a compliment.

    (Someone mod him/her up "to-the-max" for an INTERESTING tale, and good words of wisdom (not sure of your sex what-with your nickname handle here, hence the him/her stuff above.. lol))

    APK

    P.S.=> It must have been hellacious for your pal, & I hope I never get 'roped into' such lunacy myself... same goes for you also, because you sound like "the voice of reason" in the termination of your post (which is why I stated what I have mostly)... apk

    1. Re:GirlInTraining: Gotta say this to you... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It figures that the hopelessly delusional apk would buy into and totally eat up a story told by the equally delusional and out of touch girlintraining. BTW, what's up with you and trannies? First you had a thing for tomhudson, now girlintraining. Trying to tell us something Alexa?

  36. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0

    Makes me wonder if LulzSec was the creation of the FBI.

  37. First rule of hacking: CYA by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hackers nowadays don't even know the rules of hacking

    First rule of hacking - Don't leave any trail behind

    Second rule of hacking - Leave false leads

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:First rule of hacking: CYA by lightknight · · Score: 0

      You should tell them that hacking is like Fight Club.

      The first rule of hacking is that you don't talk about hacking.
      The second rule about hacking is that you don't talk about hacking (even to 'friends').

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:First rule of hacking: CYA by queBurro · · Score: 1

      Second rule of hackclub - Don't Leave Any Trail Behind!

      --
      sag
    3. Re:First rule of hacking: CYA by queBurro · · Score: 1

      how embarrassing, sorry lightknight

      --
      sag
  38. the FBI was running them. by decora · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sabu was essentially an FBI agent. all the hacks that happened within the past 6 months under the guise of anonymous were, essentially, controlled and directed by the FBI. the FBI even hosted servers for them to use in their operation.

    the first rule of hacking would seem to be - if someone asks you to do something illegal and stupid, it's probably an FBI sting operation.

    1. Re:the FBI was running them. by lhunath · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      --
      ``OK, so ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking, yeah?''
    2. Re:the FBI was running them. by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if Anon is totally an FBI (or other agency) front. Like a honeypot. Wannabe hackers get all googly eyed about some super-secret hacker organisation - oooh, I wanna be a rebel too!

      So they go online looking for Anonymous and posting stuff everywhere they can "Teach me to be a leet hacker" or "How do I join anon? I know how to run a script!" and so on.

      Eventually they stumble upon the honeypot of the week and the agent says "ok, dude, here's your target!" and the idiot breaks into something and gets busted.

      Or, I'm totally wrong and anonymous is real.



      So, ummm, where do I sign up? I know how to run a script!

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    3. Re:the FBI was running them. by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Or both.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  39. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by lightknight · · Score: 1

    Yes. Do it from the telecom's central office. They love that.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  40. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by lightknight · · Score: 1

    Hmm. Let's see here. They're using cracking skills from 1995 and the movie "Hackers"...and there are a hideous number of security companies (including one former anti-virus company) that want to be fed...

    Definite possibility.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  41. Never tell your MO by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Never tell your MO. You have just described the guy that hacked my employers systems. The only way you know how they did that, is if you were that guy. Busted!

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:Never tell your MO by lightknight · · Score: 1

      You caught me. ;-)

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  42. Are you not entertained? by Guppy · · Score: 1

    LulzSec in my opinion were sacrificing their future for dumb reasons. Was it worth going to jail over?

    Many Bothans died to bring us these Lulz.

  43. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    No, what he meant is that everyone in prison or under threat of same rats. Read some true crime. Talk to admins or guards from a prison. Don't bother with prisoners because they lie. Too much reputation to protect. Most of these jailhouse turds would sell their own mother for an extra slice of bread at lunchtime.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  44. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by elucido · · Score: 1

    Makes me wonder if LulzSec was the creation of the FBI.

    If LulzSec was a creation of the FBI why are all the members being arrested by the FBI?

    Sabu whomever he is, his life is ruined as a reward for helping the FBI. Those others involved their lives are ruined because they got arrested by the FBI. I don't see how this equates to the FBI creating LulzSec unless you know something we don't.

  45. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by elucido · · Score: 1

    No, what he meant is that everyone in prison or under threat of same rats. Read some true crime. Talk to admins or guards from a prison. Don't bother with prisoners because they lie. Too much reputation to protect. Most of these jailhouse turds would sell their own mother for an extra slice of bread at lunchtime.

    I don't see your point. Yes there are traitors in prison but there are even more traitors outside of prison. Hackers could never trust each other.

  46. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    I mean they want to scoop up some people who are associated with Anonymous so they start with this guy Sabu who already has a record and they push him into creating a new, smaller organisation and recruiting people to join it. Then Sabu builds LulzSec to the point where they do a few operations, all the time feeding evidence to the FBI. Once the FBI have enough information the arrests start. It all comes down to the order or operations. Did the FBI start working with Sabu before or after LulzSec started up?

  47. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    Way upthread you implied that only pussies become snitches. The AC and I disagree with that assessment.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  48. Lulzec is not anonymous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this a PR trick by the feds to make it look like they arent being raped by anonymous any longer? Lulzec was all about getting their name out while anonymous is about the message, not the messenger.

  49. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They weren't so anonymous after all?

    -An anonymous coward

  50. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Harder? darn near impossible.

    You give far too much credit to IT forensics people, they are very under-trained and rarely catch anyone but people that do not know how to hide their tracks.

  51. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by elucido · · Score: 1

    Way upthread you implied that only pussies become snitches. The AC and I disagree with that assessment.

    There is a difference between being tortured and broken and testifying on the stand against your brother. The snitch is testifying against his brother while the torture victim is saying anything to make the pain stop.

    The information from someone who has been tortured is notoriously unreliable because we know they'll say anything the authorities want them to say even if it's bullshit. What Sabu did went far beyond just saying stuff, he actually entrapped people according to the documents so he's an absolute snitch, traitor, etc.

    The last guy who resembled Sabu was Albert Gonzalez. Nobody can trust a snitch, not the feds and not the community. What happened the moment the feds were finished exploiting Sabu as a resource? They threw him overboard like trash.

  52. It's how many criminals get caught by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    They just can't help but run their mouth. To some extent it is just human condition, we all like to talk, but of course when what you are talking about it perfectly legal it doesn't matter. However criminals in particular like to get all braggey. They are very proud of the fact that they pulled one over on "the man" and want to talk about it. Police are only all to happy to use that against them.

  53. Also by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People who whine about the Big Corps and CEOs and all that seem to forget that quite often what they were doing was NOT illegal. You cannot punish someone ex post facto in the US. You can't say "What you were doing was perfectly legal when you did it, but now we want it to be illegal so we are going to punish you." That isn't just a concept in US law, it is one of those things made explicit by the constitution. Some of it is still legal now (like high frequency trading).

    The feds do, in fact, go after CEOs engaged in illegal behaviour. Bernie Madoff would e the most high profile recent example, but there are more if you care to look in to it. They don't just go and arrest anyone that some random geeks feel were bad though.

    1. Re:Also by metacell · · Score: 1

      That isn't just a concept in US law, it is one of those things made explicit by the constitution.

      And internationally considered to be one of the cornerstones of a free and democratic society.

      But some of the things that led up to the financial crises *were* illegal, such as fraudulent loans. It's just very hard to prove the CEOs knew what the people under them were doing.

  54. Last line GirlInTraining wrote, rings true... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like I said in my post you're trolling (stalking me as ac as usual on your part - so 'courageous' of you, lol (not))?

    Per my subject-line, that's an awesome point!

    (Now, whether the rest of girlintraining's post is TRUTH or not? It doesn't affect me adversely either way, but it was indeed, interesting (and things like that do happen)... so, I take it @ face value).

    * After all - it's not like girlintraining's trying to sell me the brooklyn bridge here... & when you get your license to practice psychiatry, then, you're not guilty of libeling me (which is again, breaking the law).

    APK

    P.S.=>

    "BTW, what's up with you and trannies? First you had a thing for tomhudson, now girlintraining. Trying to tell us something Alexa? - by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12, @03:18AM (#39323951)

    Who said girlintraining's a tranny? I never saw that.

    Plus, tomhudson pulled the same crap you are on me now, stalking/harassing me by ac replies, AND, telling others to do so with her/him:

    "Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". - by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544

    "HOWTO: trolling the hosts file guy in one easy step The next time you see a post by him, just reply anonymously. And to really mess with his head, reply anonymously to your anonymous post, disagreeing with your first anon post (extra points if you claim in the second post that you're him - that REALLY sets him off). He'll accuse you of being me by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday April 16, @01:38PM (#35841122) Homepage Journal

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086424&cid=35841122

    "if you're going to tell this guy to stop spamming his hosts file crap, make sure you do it anonymously by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday April 16, @12:45PM (#35840680) Homepage Journal

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086920&cid=35840680

    That's breaking the rules here on this website's use-policy in fact:

    ---

    SourceForge Content does not endorse or promote racism, bigotry, hatred, or physical harm of any kind against another group or individual, and does not discriminate, incite harassment or advocate harassment of any group or individual;

    FROM -> http://geek.net/index.php/terms-of-use/

    ---

    Especially doing as tomhudson did, by inciting others to do so as well as breaking laws in 'stalking/harassing' others online (plenty of fools like yourselves are obviously either mentally troubled, or juvenile kids) - in fact?

    You're doing JUST what tomhudson said to do, stalking/harassing me by ac replies, & this has been going on for months, to what avail? None - other than you're looking like some sick nutcase...

    ... apk

  55. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Sabu's life isn't ruined. Looks like he will just about "get-away" with his involvement because he gave leads to catch the others.

    Most likely once the others have been to trial the FBI, at tax-payer expense will give him a new name- in a new city, a large pay-cheque- and have him do work for them.

    Far from being ruined. Sabu's life has probably been made.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  56. Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a better suggestion: just don't do it. It doesn't matter how many skills you think you have, it's still wrong, and they can employ people with more skills and better equipment to find you.

  57. The problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today's hackers are too concerned with publicity. They WANT people to know how good they are. A true hacker, is one that doesnt give a rats ass about publicity or proving himself to others. These hackers are the ones you need to worry about as they keep a low profile and only compete with themselves...

    1. Re:The problem... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Regular SQL injection exploits is nothing to shake a stick at.
        I would even go as far as saying they seemed like amateurs when they publicized their trivial "hacks" that most security scanners would discover within minutes.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  58. Well, what were you expecting? by Hasai · · Score: 1

    ....Professional-level OPSEC from amateurs?
    XD

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  59. google it by decora · · Score: 1, Informative

    Sabu was an FBI agent, the FBI helped him find servers for the stratfor leak. all over the news in the past few days.

  60. Re:Last line GirlInTraining wrote, rings true... a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sick nutcase? You're the one with a fascination with those who have a penis removed.

  61. Re:Last line GirlInTraining wrote, rings true... a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even worse, he's illiterate. He takes geek.net's policy of not endorsing various types of speech as being a ban on same.

  62. Re:Last line GirlInTraining wrote, rings true... a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're so correct why reply as ac? Obvious ur one of the wrongdoers.

  63. Re:Last line GirlInTraining wrote, rings true... a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop replying to yourself.

  64. Simple logic & facts "got the best of you" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems you've been watching this for a day straight, only to lose so badly, exposing yourself? Please... lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Libel's NOT free speech and I have evidences of tomhudson doing THAT my way too, and absolutely first, prior to ANY of this which I showed you all already...

    SO - Do I bother with a known piece of trash troll like that? Don't have to now:

    tomhudson in a GOOGLE search on slashdot shows his/her 'ethics', & now shows up as the 2nd result with part of his/her crap directed my way, part of which I extolled earlier (& that's only because he/she kept up the crap everyone saw), here:

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2719413&cid=39324771

    No, I did enough already, & tomhudson basically did it to himself/herself (whatever) by inciting others to stalk myself here via anonymous coward trolling posts... dumb

    Heck - I've even got PROOF of the 'trolltalk.com' (a domain tomhudson owns or runs no less, look @ the name for Pete's sake, lol) acting in collaboration to MOD THEMSELVES UP IN TEAMS, & to mod their opponents DOWN with it (and yes, it's doable, logout to preserve your cookie state here as a reg'd luser & see) then troll by ac... gosh!

    Just like YOU'RE DOING... amateurs ALWAYS tip their hand/show their tell, just like LulzSec did... dumb.

    One thing stalking morons of tomhudson's nature NEVER GET RIGHT, is that they're wrong from the get-go/start, pulling crap like that, & being caught in it (telling others to literally STALK myself here)... too bad it end up with egg on their faces, every single time, lol! apk

  65. Re:Last line GirlInTraining wrote, rings true... a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ur a stalker of others by harassing anonymous coward replies.

  66. Protest doesn't require breaking the law??? by jerunamuck · · Score: 1

    Protest may not require breaking the law but it's more effective when protesters do. It's called Civil Disobedience!

    How many "Occupy" protesters are in the SF or NY judicial system because they were protesting? Would we know about their cause if they just stood down the street holding up signs? I would argue, NO!. That level of civil disobedience was required to get media attention. There was no media coverage of the Occupy events for weeks.

    How many were jailed while protesting nuclear power plants in their home towns? Many of those arrests resulted in the plant NOT being constructed. All of those arrests resulted in a dramatic reduction in new nuclear power plants in the US. Can you say those arrested protesters were not effective? Only now are we seeing new projects breaking ground and those are being vehemently protested resulting in arrests.

    This level of civil disobedience may be required to bring your cause before the courts. Do you disagree? then go back to school and take Civics 101. It's how our system works so stop vilifying protesters.

    LulzSec had a specific mission, separate and distinct from Anonymous. It's mission was to point out the incompetency of people we trust to secure our digital society. They did so in an embarrassingly effective way. I believe they all knew the risks involved in what they were doing. I support that belief by pointing out the steps they took to cloak their identity and avoid prosecution for the laws they knew they were breaking. In my mind that makes them patriots willing to suffer persecution for standing up against corruption and incompetence in the very agencies we charge with security. Were I the sentencing judge I would have to give them the recommended minimum sentence but I would also charge the people they exposed with negligence and complicity. If someone breaks in and steals from you, jail them. If someone breaks in then leaves a note behind and tells you how they did it, hire them!

    I hope and expect that these people cited as being "senior leadership" were in fact just inexperienced noobs that got caught. I'm ashamed to say my government has a long history of holding up some patsy as the "Ring Leader" because it makes good press rather than because the assertion has any validity. I see this as another reason to repeal "Qualified Immunity". It made sense 100 year ago but no longer. Today "Qualified Immunity" only creates a group of people "above the law" and empowers them with laziness and incompetence. A public detective can get malpractice insurance the same as a private detective or a doctor or any of a thousand other professions. When will we stop coddling incompetence? When will we stop letting them run amok when someone embarrasses them?

    1. Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law??? by jerunamuck · · Score: 1

      One more thought.

      Congress just passed a law making protest in the vicinity of the secret service a criminal act. I expect the law will not pass Constitutional muster. Unfortunately, someone must break that law, get arrested, and sacrifice their career, home, and life savings to bring that obviously unconstitutional law before the Supreme Court.

      Apparently our Congressional "Leaders" thinks that OK so long as they don't have to listen to protesters outside their convention. And, they have no complicity in passing this abomination to the Constitution they swore to uphold.

      Just something to remember...
      in November.