Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr Steps Down

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the just-taking-a-break dept.

Security 212

Gunkerty Jeb writes "Embattled CEO Aaron Barr says he is stepping down from his post at HBGary Federal to allow the company to move on after members of the online mischief making group Anonymous hacked into HBGary Federal's computer network and published tens of thousands of company e-mail messages on the Internet. In an interview with Threatpost, Barr said that he is stepping down to allow himself and the company he ran to move on in the wake of the high profile hack."

cancel ×

212 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh no! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341730)

Good riddance. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342612)

Frankly I lost all respect for the guy back when the sonuvabitch shot Alexander Humilton.

BF Gary (1)

yoyoq (1056216) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341736)

oh man , my BFF Gary is stepping down.

owned (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341740)

This will go down in history as an awesome example of the firepower of the fully armed and operational battlestation.

Re:owned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341900)

A shame they didn't accidentally entire company, though - then the metaphor would fit. This comes across as more of a political assassination.

Disturbance in the Dark Side? (2)

mfh (56) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342016)

Emperor Palpatine: "I felt a great disturbance in the dark side, my apprentice, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in joy and were suddenly heard by those in power. I fear something terrible has happened."

Re:owned (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342304)

Fully armed and operational, except for the bit that actually aims the weapons. Anonymous might demolish a genuine bad guy, or they might destroy the life of some innocent teenager. Being what it is, Anonymous has only a small chance of evolving into real hacktivism and away from it's "for the lulz" roots. That makes it even more dangerous than most vengeful vigilante groups. I mean, "That teenage girl is a camwhore!" is as much of a motivating battle-cry to Anonymous as "That guy is subverting the law to attack wikileaks." Needless to say, I'm happy this creep got his comeuppance. But I would much rather his downfall were accomplished through the rule of law and not vigilante justice. Still, when real justice is hopelessly corrupt, what else is there?

Re:owned (0)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342388)

Consequences will never be the same! But no really, even when Anonymous picks on some "innocent nobody" they usually do deserve it in some way. I'd rather a few emo girls and/or fat kids get their feelings hurt if that's the price for having huge shadowy organizations get pwnt.

Re:owned (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342436)

Oh do they now? Classy. Hope you're the next one in the gunsights, dude. You need the perspective.

Re:owned (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342636)

This has very little to do with vigilante justice. Anonymous demonstrated how embarrassingly incompetent HBGary is at what it claims to be its area of expertise. The management of any company that is exposed to be so incompetent deserves to be shamed and fired. Not to mention that Aaron Burr was misusing his position to pursue a personal obsession that had nothing to do with the company's goals. That "vigilante justice" has anything to do with it is completely circumstantial and only marginally related to Aaron Burr's incompetence and corruption.

Re:owned (4, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342818)

How is this not vigilante justice? Anonymous went outside the law to punish someone they see as an evildoer. That is pretty much the definition of vigilante justice.

Re:owned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342728)

But I would much rather his downfall were accomplished through the rule of law and not vigilante justice. Still, when real justice is hopelessly corrupt, what else is there?

.. so Anonymous is Batman? Awsome.

yeah and more time with his family (5, Funny)

inkscapee (1994086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341752)

and rehab, and the blahblahlblah usual excuses that mean "I don't know the first thing about security, but I have insider connections and can con almost anyone, especially other ignorant stupid CEOs. It's been a wonderful, lucrative experience! God bless, see you all in my new venture, securitized subprime mortgage loans!"

Re:yeah and more time with his family (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342192)

You were modded "Funny" and rightfully so. But the sickening thing is, he WILL get another CEO job because he has experience. Of course, if any of us peons fucked up as bad as he did, we would have been canned, walked out by security, and be struggling to find another job.

Corporate America is so fucking retarded!

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class gets fucked.

Remember kids: go to an Ivy league school, join the best frat, make friends at parties, use those connections to get executive jobs and profit! Oh, and make sure to keep up the old BS American Dream story how "work hard and you too can be rich!"

Look at Facebook jackoff! DO you honestly think he would be where he is if he started FB at Indiana State?!? Fuck no! At Harvard he got noticed by the big shots!

Fck'n A ... Bullshit!

Re:yeah and more time with his family (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342258)

Wait, isn't he getting divorced?

hes actually going to start an MMO (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342308)

go to the archive of their emails and do a keyword search for MMO

Need to focus (1)

starfishsystems (834319) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341758)

“I need to focus on [...] rebuilding my reputation."

Hey, it's never too late to start.

Obligatory (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341766)

And nothing of value was lost...

Majorus Cokhup (1)

tiptone (729456) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341768)

Excuse him folks, it's going to be a while before he can get that foot out of his mouth.

Anon wins. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341776)

FLAWLESS VICTORY

woohoo! (0)

untitled90 (1952422) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341778)

see subject

He wasn't fired? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341790)

How was this man allowed to keep his job after his shenanigans were made public?

Re:He wasn't fired? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341846)

You must be thinking of little people rules...

Re:He wasn't fired? (3, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341864)

"Stepping down" is basically the corporate-speak equivalent of seppuku. They get rid of his disgraced ass and in return, he gets to pretend he still has some dignity.

Re:He wasn't fired? (1)

locallyunscene (1000523) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342146)

More likely, he doesn't get the same benefits for "quitting" that he would get for being "fired".

Re:He wasn't fired? (2)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342190)

More likely, he doesn't get the same benefits for "quitting" that he would get for being "fired".

You have that backwards. Most likely, he gets all the benefits from "quitting", and would get none for being "fired" (though these days CxOs are so brazen in their greed that their employment contracts probably give them benefits even if they were fired for raping children in the company boardroom).

Re:He wasn't fired? (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342328)

though these days CxOs are so brazen in their greed that their employment contracts probably give them benefits even if they were fired for raping children in the company boardroom

When did that become a firing-worthy offense for these guys?

Re:He wasn't fired? (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342152)

And the money. They always shower them in big piles of money.

Re:He wasn't fired? (3, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341866)

He partially owned the company. you can't fire someone like that. you have to buy them out.

Which means he got a nice golden parachute too. Hopefully it was real gold and they kick him out of a large building with it.

Re:He wasn't fired? (4, Informative)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342010)

He partially owned the company. you can't fire someone like that. you have to buy them out.

That depends on how much a portion he owned. If, say, he owned 15% of the shares and the other 85% of the shareholders say GTFO then that's just what he has to do. He'll still own shares but he won't be CEO or what have you.

Re:He wasn't fired? (2)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342166)

How was this man allowed to keep his job after his shenanigans were made public?

They couldn't fire him without getting the whole board together and that was cumbersome. Didn't you read the chat logs?

Let me be the first to say... (2, Interesting)

SanityLapse (2005842) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341794)

Ha. HaHa. HaHaHaHa. Sure, some nasty Anon broke the law here. But if anybody ever had it coming, it was this guy.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341858)

When your business is security and you get owned by hackers, I don't care if it was illegal, it's justified.

If someone broke into a brinks truck and stole everything inside after the Brinks CEO said something ridiculously stupid, I would not shed a single tear.

(Unless it was my shit that was just stolen. If it was valuable enough to be transported by Brinks though, it's probably insured anyway.)

Re:Let me be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342230)

They don't guarantee it can't be stolen while in their possession, though, they just take extreme measures to make it less likely. Which is really the best you can do. After looking through the Ars Technica report about what this guy did before he pissed off Anon, I think at first what he was trying to convince people about had merit, but desperation got the best of him and he went the low road to succeed, which didn't work anyway (obviously).

People think they have a lot more privacy than they actually do, and many of the measures we have in place simply don't work (secret questions, etc). At least not if you don't know how to protect yourself, and since most people haven't a clue... But if you want to be White Hat, you have to be very careful, and this guy either wasn't, or just didn't care about anything but the $$$.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342320)

That's exactly my point though.

I don't hear of stories where corporate officers of brinks or Loomis Fargo intentionally pissing off and looking for trouble either.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342246)

Was it even illegal? I thought someone actually gave them a password at one point.

The moral of the story (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341824)

I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.

Re:The moral of the story (4, Insightful)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341884)

I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.

Hard to see how the Anon side lost here. Their prestige is up, their deadly rep is more solid than ever, and still nobody knows who they are IRL. So maybe the lesson should be, "don't get into an online pissing contest, unless you really are the most badass hacker gang in history."

Re:The moral of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341934)

"anonymous ... the most badass hacker gang in history" -- what the hell?

Re:The moral of the story (1)

pyrr (1170465) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342274)

Yeah! Wouldn't that be CDC or something? No, wait, it would probably be a group we have never even heard of, because hackers are like ninjas, right?

Re:The moral of the story (4, Interesting)

Predius (560344) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341970)

Anon provided more ammo for those who want to implement multiple forms of 'internet controls' or harsher punishment for 'cyber' crime. They just fortified the positions of those they're trying to scare off.

Re:The moral of the story (5, Insightful)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342036)

They also exposed the fraudulent plans of a major security firm. Shouldn't it fortify the position that corporations holding those kind of government contracts should come under more scrutiny?

Re:The moral of the story (3, Insightful)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342168)

All that will happen is that HBGary's competitors will update their marketing material. "Don't pull an HBGary. Use XYZ Security instead."

Re:The moral of the story (1)

BisexualPuppy (914772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342104)

They just fortified the positions of those they're trying to scare off.

Don't resist or they will bite harder, that is. No way.

Re:The moral of the story (1)

biodata (1981610) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342132)

This is probably anon's gameplan. Who else is the government going to give all the tax dollars to to build all the new locks and backdoors? The clampdown plays right into anon's hands.

Ah, nice logic (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342536)

So basically, I shouldn't use any freedoms because that might give fuel to someone wishing to limit them?

So gay people, don't be gay or people might forbid it.

A spine, you need one. Or afraid if you get one, people will forbid it?

Re:Ah, nice logic (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342730)

And if the antics of Anonymous were 100% legal, you'd have a point. As many of their antics are clearly illegal (like hacking into a security firm), you really have no damned point and just look like an idiot. You are not free to break the law.

Re:The moral of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342768)

What kind of faggotry are you trying to spew?

You're an idiot.

Re:The moral of the story (2)

locallyunscene (1000523) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342178)

I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.

Hard to see how the Anon side lost here. Their prestige is up, their deadly rep is more solid than ever, and still nobody knows who they are IRL. So maybe the lesson should be, "don't get into an online pissing contest, unless you really are the most badass hacker gang in history."

And a gov't connected security agency has logs and logs of data that were collected during the attack. This may not have been an intentional honey pot, but that doesn't mean it can't still be used that way unless the attackers were really good.

Irrelevant (2)

Rix (54095) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342654)

They could find and prosecute every single person even tertiarily involved and the hive would simply get stronger.

We are all Anonymous.

Re:The moral of the story (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342264)

"...the most badass hacker gang in history."

What? I'm pretty sure the Russian mob (one of the most notorious black-hat hacking gangs in the world) would have half of Anon sobbing into their mothers' skirts within about 10 minutes if they ever got challenged by those hacker wannabes.

Re:The moral of the story (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342344)

The problem for Anonymous is they are now the Internet's equivalent to 1984's "Emmanuel Goldstein". Anyone can use them in a false flag operation now.

Re:The moral of the story (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342530)

Those wastes of flesh at WBC were the first to pull that particular trigger already.

Re:The moral of the story (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341886)

Even if Anonymous loses, Anonymous wins.

Re:The moral of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341916)

How did 4chan lose again? Did the admin step down out of shame from there too?

Re:The moral of the story (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341924)

I think the moral of the story was "Don't stick your penis into the hornet's nest."

Re:The moral of the story (0)

bigjocker (113512) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342236)

What impresses me the most in this case is how everyone is mocking this guy. I mean, he screwed up big time, but as some of the articles have pointed out, he managed to identify a couple of members of anonymous (whom had not been identified before in public), and almost identified another, who admitted in public that Barr pointed instead to his girlfriend. I mean, that's pretty close isn't it?

Again, this guy is a dick head and whatnot, and got what was coming to him and all ... but he got really close.

Re:The moral of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342544)

He seems to have identified one person.

The person who said his girlfriend was identified is one of the publicly known associates of what could be called an Anonymous cell.

Re:The moral of the story (1)

PraiseBob (1923958) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342856)

He managed to point the finger at a few bored teenagers, who may, or may not, self identify with a hacker organization, and may or may not be involved with the actual hacking. He has no proof of any sort of wrongdoing, and who knows if the names he gathered are actual people.

On the other hand: He lost his high paying job from the company he founded. He was publicly humiliated. His company is embarrassed. His clients are embarrassed. His company may not recover, they've certainly lost a lot of future business, and been made the laughingstock of their industry, and their only hope is to rename and rebrand.

So... doesn't seem anywhere close to me.

it's too bad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341856)

it's too bad anon is just a bunch of stupid script kiddies who will get sent to jail by the feds...

el oh el slashdot, el oh fucking el.

BFD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341898)

He'll just start another dirty business. There will always be people willing to pay for propaganda and astroturf.

Revisionist history anyone? (5, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341902)

From the argh-tickle.

"By combining a SQL injection attack on HBGary's Web site with sophisticated social engineering attacks"

Uhm. WHAT?

Sophisticated? I wouldn't call a couple of e-mails from a hijacked account asking to back-door a server "sophisticated".

What the HBGary hack was:

Basic SQL Injection
Weak passwords
Password Re-use
SIMPLE social engineering

Your basic molotov cocktail of fail.

Re:Revisionist history anyone? (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342198)

It is sophisticated because the emails could have come from the person sending them. Proper grammar,similar writing styles, with enough background information to sound like it was legitimate.

basically unless you were a close personal friend you couldn't easily tell the difference, unlike the $38.6 million that some guy who just emailed me has stashed in Libyan and is having a hard time getting it out safely.

Re:Revisionist history anyone? (1)

oamasood (1754360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342234)

To elaborate 'Weak passwords': Their passwords were hashed using the MD5 algorithm, and no salt. These passwords can be easily decrypted using online tools like http://www.md5decrypter.com/ [md5decrypter.com]

Re:Revisionist history anyone? (2)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342250)

Of course they're going to say it was some sophisticated uber attack that only ninja net gods could have done. Their stock and their reputation has taken enough of a beating. The truth would be FAR worse. "No, we were pwnt by really simple stuff like crappy passwords and ignoring basic safeguards. In the light of that though, may we work out a service contract with you to make you business secure?"

Nope, not happening. The truth wouldn't do anything but tank them harder. Lies would be pretty much your only choice.

Re:Revisionist history anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342360)

Ummm, just because you and I know how to do this, doesn't mean it isn't sophisticated. Your average computer user can barely tie their shoes, so when it comes to really gaming the system, I think this falls under that umbrella.

If you'd like to speak of the specific SQL injection they used, vs' newer vulnerabilities, and the lack of pgp encryption used in emails between members with root access throwing the pass around in plain text, let's throw stones.

Sophisticated? In reality to you and me and the targeted community here? No. To everyone else? Absolutely!

I miss greatly (1)

kubitus (927806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341936)

the Anonymous mask as the icon to this story!

-

same bullshit goes on in my company: big manager boasting security - justifying any expenses - but are not able to remember more than one password at a time and reuse it everywhere!

Re:I miss greatly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342082)

The Internet...

serious business!

Re:I miss greatly (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342162)

god damnit, it's not an "Anonymous" mask it's a Guy Fawkes [wikipedia.org] mask. the historical connection is important as it's apt as all hell.

There should be no reason etc, see you next bonfire.

Re:I miss greatly (0)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342442)

Informative AC is informative.

its been trademarked by anonymous they will .... (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342340)

just kidding

and... (2)

woboyle (1044168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341980)

This butthead should be in rehab, not running a "serious" security company...

Re:and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342070)

This butthead should be in rehab, not running a "serious" security company...

Right. Hey, I hear Charlie Sheen's looking for work. He couldn't do any worse than this tool.

I'll bet... (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342008)

I'll bet he is going back to school. Learn some basics.

Re:I'll bet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342046)

He certainly got schooled.

Re:I'll bet... (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342122)

(...and needs more schooling)

From TFA (5, Insightful)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342042)

>Leavy said that the company's partners had been supportive following the hack. The proposals for Bank of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were simply responses to requests for services that HBGary had received. "HBGary Federal is a services company and they were asked to develop proposals," she told Threatpost.

I see. That fact that the "services" are illegal, immoral, and unethical really doesn't enter in, because they're a service company and this is a service. Sort of like a hit man is just an HR professional specializing in staff reduction services.

Re:From TFA (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342180)

> Sort of like a hit man is just an HR professional specializing in staff reduction services.

I smell a sequel to "Up in the Air"

Re:From TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342656)

It's already there. It's called The American and it even features Mr. Clooney

Next Headline: (0)

robnator (250608) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342068)

Barr hired by Republican Party (or Fox)...

Re:Next Headline: (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342224)

Barr hired by Republican Party (or Fox)...

I would think that his antics would be more suited for one of the **AA's, which of course is more in line with the DEM's. But whatever.

Re:Next Headline: (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342478)

A definite shoe-in for the Cyber Security Czar position.

A sign of the times? (5, Interesting)

Fallout2man (689436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342172)

You know in many ways I'm starting to wonder if the rise of Anonymous could be considered a legitimate political/social phenomena linked to the recession and how people feel increasingly left out of the political process/system because of big money buying our congress' collective ears? Widespread piracy is widely considered by many to be an economic indicator that the market has become too one-sided, maybe this is the political equivalent?

I saw a post suggesting they may be targeting the Koch Brothers for their involvement in the current Wisconsin/multi-state effort to completely bust Unions. Is this finally the people striking back? Not to say I'm not thankful someone's taking the time to respond, but oh what a sad thing it says about humanity that we have to resort to these types of solutions to keep from getting completely steamrolled by the almighty dollar?

Re:A sign of the times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342242)

Very insightful. I wonder why the Anonymous vs Koch thing hasn't been on slashdot yet? Is it for real? Saw it 24 hours ago already...

Re:A sign of the times? (1)

Fallout2man (689436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342362)

It could possibly be a fake, that's one thing I'm curious about too. The Westboro Baptist Church recently tried to bait them so this could be more bait, or slashdot being a bit cautious after front-paging the fake WBC anon story previously.

Re:A sign of the times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342426)

Very insightful. I wonder why the Anonymous vs Koch thing hasn't been on slashdot yet? Is it for real? Saw it 24 hours ago already...

Who knows?

http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=621

There have been several news articles recently suggesting that Anonymous is taking a very specific political stance regarding the events in Wisconsin. While some Anons are undoubtedly passionate about this issue, it would be a mistake to report that Anonymous is targeting the Koch brothers, or are even uniform in their opinion of collective bargaining rights of public employees at the state level.

Perhaps it might make more sense to you if you simply add a press release here at AnonNews, and see how easy it is to make a pronouncement on behalf of Anonymous?

Please recognize that as Anonymous' brand has aquired legitimacy, opportunists have and will continue to try to tie their personal political agendas to the movement.[My emphasis]

A handy bullet list guide for visiting journalists

        * Anonymous has no official position on abortion
        * Anonymous has no official position on tax policy
        * Anonymous has no official position on health care
        * Anonymous has no official position on collective bargaining agreements
        * Anonymous has no official position on campaign finance reform
        * Anonymous has no official position on the Tea Party
        * Anonymous has no official position on the Democratic Party
        * Anonymous has no official position on the Republican Party
        * Anonymous has no official position on the Green Party
        * Anonymous has no official position on global warming
        * Anonymous has no official position on off-shore drilling
        * Anonymous has no official position on budget deficits
        * Anonymous has no official position on George Soros
        * Anonymous has no official position on the Koch brothers
        * Anonymous has no official position on Fox News
        * Anonymous has no official position on MSNBC
        * Anonymous has no official position on CNN
        * Anonymous has no official position on NAFTA
        * Anonymous has no official position on the IMF or World Bank
        * Anonymous has no official position on Wall Street
        * Anonymous has no official position on entitlement programs
        * Anonymous has no official position on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
        * Anonymous has a very fucking official position on LULZ

Re:A sign of the times? (1)

ron_ivi (607351) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342444)

"the Anonymous vs Koch ... Is it for real?"

You already know the answer to that.

Even if you don't realize that you know it.

But in case you really need it spelled out to you --- yes, indeed someone anonymously ranted something about Koch on teh internet.

That makes him part of Anonymous just as much as Ben Franklin lobbying European governments under pseudonyms like Benevolous to support the colonies. And as much as Thomas Paine when he Anonymously published his pamphlet Common Sense. Just as you were Anonymous when you asked (and therefore answered) that very question. Just as Spartacus was when all his fans clouded him with anonymity by co-claiming his given name.

So to answer your question most directly:

Yes, you too are anonymous, and yes, you did indeed put that Koch thing on slashdot.

Re:A sign of the times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342270)

Activism of this nature along with "political unrest" regardless of whether its illegal or not is typically the last step before firearms are introduced into the equation by the side of the people in control of the military and people on the other side die, we're seeing this played out now in the middle east.

Re:A sign of the times? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342334)

I don't think going up against the Koch brothers or the WI governor is something that'll catch the attention of anonymous. It's too partisan. After all, a good portion of anonymous would like to go up against the unions. Anonymous will go after 'no-brainer' evil... which is basically, in their wordview, censorship. Maybe religion. Maybe fraud.

Re:A sign of the times? (1)

Fallout2man (689436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342482)

I think that given the level of transparent cartoonish villainy that's starting to pop up in politics that while yes, a lot of the same people that make up Anonymous are the same people who voted for Ron Paul. Maybe it's just me, but coming as someone who used to share that mindset I would think enough exposure to the current political climate would make them be more likely to side with the Unions than against them.

I know when I was attracted to that whole Ron Paul, limited government movement my concerns were 100% social justice and social issues and I really didn't concern myself hardly at all with the economic platform. You can imagine my dismay when I found out well over half of the most vocal supporters didn't care at all about social issues and many were in fact advancing horribly regressive social policy (as bad and in some cases worse than the current GOP) and dressing it up as "m0ar fr33d0mz!!!" and were really in it for the economics side because they just wanted to never pay taxes and didn't want Big Mean Ol' Gubbmint' from stopping them from hating on minorities and the poor.

All it took for me to see that, ironically enough, was for me to stop looking at politics from an ivory tower as a game of theories and to look at real-world data on what policies actually produced results, and were likely to ever be passed in this lifetime in our government. Good politics and good policy are inseparable, because even the best plan in the world is useless if you can't convince anyone to follow it.

anonymous chooses targets that target it. (2)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342358)

the only reason it went against scientology is because scientology was attacking random people all over the internet with lawsuits. that is why anonymous fought back.

anonymous is never going to go after drug lords or human traffickers or etc. they go after people who @#$$ with them. The HBGary guy was going after them directly, trying to 'out' them by scraping facebook etc. that is why they went at him.

Re:A sign of the times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342630)

Speaking as a resident of Wisconsin who has been closely following all of the developments regarding the Koch Brother's alleged connections to our governor, as well as participating in the 2-week-long demonstration at our state capitol that is still on-going, this isn't exactly a case of we the people striking back. We didn't ask for Anonymous to get involved: that is something they seemingly have chosen to do of their own accord. I don't believe that the majority of the people effected either directly or indirectly are unappreciative (unless you happen to be the Koch brothers, of course) as it's becoming more and more clear that no matter how many bodies either figuratively or literally echo the concerns the vast majority of Wisconsinites have over the proposals, it's falling on deaf ears. It's certainly a sad state of affairs for humanity that this is the case, but compared to the available alternatives I'll happily accept Anonymous shenanigans to make people listen.

Re:A sign of the times? (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342688)

Sounds more like public "union" employees are spending too much time during the workday on 4chan.

Too late... (1)

oamasood (1754360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342184)

A little background info: Aaron Barr was the CEO of HBGary Federal, a smaller company made by HBGary to do government contracts. HBGary only owned about 15% of HBGary Federal. However, both companies shared username/password information for Aaron Barr, which is why Anonymous easily hacked into HBGary after hacking into HBGary Federal. Anonymous released the HBGary Federal e-mails immediately, and then later on released HBGary's e-mails. My comment: Before Anonymous released HBGary's emails, Penny (the president of HBGary) actually made a deal with Anonymous: If Aaron Barr was fired and his salary given to the Bradley Manning defense fund, then Anonymous would not release the HBGary e-mails. If only Barr had stepped down a bit earlier, HBGary could've possibly saved millions of dollars.

Also read as: (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342244)

"I'm getting the hell out of here because I got exposed as a fraud that really knows nothing."

May I recommend: (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342260)

May I recommend also shuttering the company and all the companies like it, and the US government? How is it okay to use intimidation to try to prevent the release of incriminating documents? Moving on from that should mean reversing course. Does anybody care that the US government operates with fewer scruples than the mafia? This is insane.

Re:May I recommend: (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342518)

Actually, most people do not care, and if you bring it up, they will shrug it off as if it is something to be expected. For all the high ideals on which our country was founded, most people just do not care, as long as they can get their entertainment and celebrity gossip and whatnot.

The real reason he is leaving: (2)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342498)

He shot Alexander Humilton.

No. (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 3 years ago | (#35342618)

Please have an orderly shut down of your company. The internets haz spoken. Disobey at your peril.

Video summary of the story LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35342846)

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/375428/february-24-2011/corporate-hacker-tries-to-take-down-wikileaks

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?