Slashdot Mirror
The Hunt For LulzSec's Missing Sixth Member
DavidGilbert99 writes "LulzSec's star burnt brightly in the short period it was active, but things quickly turned sour when its core members began getting arrested. Last week three of the six core members were sentenced in the UK, but this only served to highlight the fact that one member of the group, known as Avunit, has been able to remain unidentified despite the FBI having turned the group's leader Sabu into an informant. Who is Avunit? And does he hold the purse strings of the group's Bitcoin wallet which could have up to $180,000 in it?"
As usual, be warned of the horrendous autoplaying video ads surrounding good content at the primary link.
If IBTimes wants to piss people off with autoplay videos, why link to them?
Here's El Reg's version of the same story:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/17/lulzsec_analysis/
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
As usual, be warned of the horrendous autoplaying video ads surrounding good content at the primary link.
Not a problem if you're running adblockers, noscript etc.
I opt IN for ads on the sites I wish to support, and I which I believe to be safe.
This feature is already in the latest Canary build of Google Chrome.
You've obviously not used Bitcoin a lot.
You can have as many wallets as you like and a wallet can generate as many "addresses" as you want to receive money on. Outsiders have no idea that two distinct Bitcoin destinations aren't in fact the same wallet.
Additionally, only the network as a whole really knows where the transactions are coming from, an individual Bitcoin user doesn't (otherwise it would be pointless!). It's peer-to-peer so somewhere, some peer knows what IP generated that transaction. But without having control of a vast proportion of the whole network, down to the IP level, there's no way to reliably trace anything back to a "real" IP, person, wallet.
Transactions are logged. But with wallet addresses. And you can tell what wallet addresses should have how much money in each. But you can't tell which wallet addresses are the same address, nor where they come from, nor who owns them. A transaction will just appear in the blockchain and come from several thousand peers almost simultaneously who share the information across the network and even the first one on the list isn't necessarily the client who first saw the transaction.
And those clients are private peer-to-peer clients. If my client was the first to see your transaction, you'd have to raid ME to get the IP information from my systems - and what are the chances of a random Bitcoin user having full network traces of all the actions on their network, going back to the transaction you're interested in, by the time you find them?
Transactions are basically sent to random people in the swarm. They talk to more random people and eventually the network all sees the transaction. Finding out which Bitcoin address first saw the transaction is nigh-on impossible even with complete knowledge. Raiding them and finding information on their systems that links back that transaction to an originating IP is incredibly unlikely even if you could do that. And if they used Tor or a proxy to initiate the transaction? You're stuffed.
Even collection of funds? They can publish any number of Bitcoin wallet addresses that secretly correspond to a single wallet and anyone who sends them money will NEVER KNOW where it's going. The transaction goes into the swarm and after a while, all clients agreed that wallet address X has amount Y in it. The total wallet, though, might have several million addresses associated with it and even the last client on the route to informing that wallet of a received transaction won't ever know that it's talking to the wallet holder.
No matter what you think of it as a currency, Bitcoin is a fabulously-designed anonymous transaction protocol. About the only threat is one entity holding 50% of the hashing power, but that just gives them the power to control the block chain, not identify users.
Well we use to have banking privacy. Banks knew who had the account, but your transactions were secret unless there was evidence of a crime in which case the bank could be forced to hand over the details.
Then as an anti-laundering measure, the data was given to SWIFT, and recorded by them, but that was OK because SWIFT was owned by the banks and would only turn over the data if evidence of a crime existed as they were under Belgian law.
Then the USA grabbed all of SWIFT's data post 9/11 deciding they should see every transaction made in the world.
Then the EU Commission *gave* them the right to receive all EU future data, after SWIFT moved their head quarters and servers from USA to Switzerland. So now the EU obtains the data from SWIFT and sends it to the USA.
Then the USA extracted some data related to tax havens, like British Virgin Islands and handed that to the press and gave all the rest of that data to UK and Australia. At the same time using the press stories to market the 'tax evasion' angle, and override the fact that a lot of privacy laws were broken when they handed private banking data to their allies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22599324#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa
So watch Bitcoin, because they'll declare Bitcoin trackable, and require forced declaration of all transactions to the USA. If you imagine they won't, take a look at SWIFT, if I send money from Belgium to Germany, the record is taken and handed to the USA, and that's despite the privacy law in the EU, and the criminal privacy law in Belgium and the financial privacy law in Germany.
At some point we all became criminals here in Europe, and the EU Commission decided it had the right to waive privacy, and we see 'leaks' of data on 'certain' politicians, but not others, as the USA gets to pick and choose who can be a politician by leaking their banking data to their allies.
To anyone with any level of maturity "hacktivists" come across as nothing more than immature glory hunters trying to get noticed as they attempt to stick it to The Man and who simply make life difficult for the 99.999% of normal internet users who just want go about their fscking business without some teenager going through the standard issue rebellious phase trying to DDOS some corp because in his tiny mind he's making some highly original and deeply profound protest.