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!

Anonymous Posts Audio of Intercepted FBI Conference Call

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the sounds-like-a-job-for-rupert-murdoch dept.

Communications 336

DrDevil writes "A member of the computer hacking group Anonymous has hacked into a telephone conference between the FBI and Scotland Yard (London Police) and posted it on the internet. The Daily Telegraph has a comprehensive article on the hack. The audio of the call can be heard here." Reader eldavojohn snips as well from the AP's story as carried by Google: "Those on the call talk about what legal strategy to pursue in the cases of Ryan Cleary and Jake Davis — two British suspects linked to Anonymous — and discuss details of the evidence gathered against other suspects."

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

I Guess This Means ... (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917001)

If Anonymous can listen to FBI calls then they'll certainly know when the FBI will be coming to kick down their door.

This will really piss off the FBI and it will be the political motivation for the FBI to pull out all the stops to find members of Anonymous.

Re:I Guess This Means ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917091)

Yeah, I'm sure Topiary and the other arrested members of Lulzsec agree with you

Re:I Guess This Means ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917125)

This feels like watching a good old flame war, only in real life (and where one side gets to act with impunity). Where's the slashdot popcorn icon?

Re:I Guess This Means ... (1)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917317)

which side gets to act with impunity? anonymous "nah nah you can't stop us" or fbi "the law? I am the law!"

Re:I Guess This Means ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917633)

The FBI. Anonymous the organization will exist for a long time, I'm sure, but the FBI are going to get a lot of Anonymous members locked away (and unable to continue their part in the flame fest). And the FBI can get away with pretty much anything.

All I Can Say (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917685)

Is Hooray. What a dump for the Hoover's and Peel's plonkers.

Secret policemen are the enemy of Democracy and Liberty. Freedom cannot be defended by means of surreptious authority.

Re:I Guess This Means ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917197)

This will really piss off the FBI and it will be the political motivation for the FBI to pull out all the stops to find members of Anonymous.

Law abiding people can certainly hope so.

Re:I Guess This Means ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917337)

I'm a law abiding person, and I'd rather see some civil disobedience than government officials corrupt with power doing whatever they want.

I'm pretty sure the FBI routinely breaks more laws than Anonymous, so this just restores the natural checks and balances our government has gotten rid of over the years.

Re:I Guess This Means ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918045)

Law abiding people can certainly hope so.

Not if they give a shit about our rights on the internet, they don't...

Re:I Guess This Means ... (4, Interesting)

doconnor (134648) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917263)

The more resources the FBI puts into find members of Anonymous, the easier it will be for Anonymous to know what they are doing.

Re:I Guess This Means ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917433)

They just need to avoid conference calls on unvetted conference systems, and in the clear networks, to organize this. I suspect they have figured this out by now.

Re:I Guess This Means ... (4, Insightful)

doconnor (134648) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917975)

The conference call seems to be the tip of the ice burg. They knew about the call because they are intercepting FBI/police emails.

The more people involved the more opportunities they have to gather information.

Re:I Guess This Means ... (3, Insightful)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917285)

what stupids. having developed the ability to intercept FBI calls, they expose themselves to get some lulz on a boring legal call. Now they've closed down that vector, and face more scrutiny. Immature amateurs.

Re:I Guess This Means ... (5, Informative)

gregulator (756993) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917455)

They have not developed the ability to intercept FBI calls.

They have developed the ability to read their emails, in which the credintials for logging into a phone conference are in plain text.

Good for business (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917291)

In public, government is angry, vengeful, and "determined" to "fix" the issue. Behind the curtains, they are celebrating a new justification for yet even more revenue and yet even more power over the people.

These situations are assets to the business of government, not liabilities.

You're not in the business of government, are you?

Re:I Guess This Means ... (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917557)

More likely it will motivate the FBI to stop using clear email and phone lines. Phone Pheaks have been doing this kind of eavesdropping for decades.

So Anonymous found a weak link and exploited it (3, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917011)

Seems to me a clever FBI/Scotland Yard, could take advantage of that to find their listeners.

If nothing else I expect they'll be a bit more careful now, which could be a good thing. Anonymous likes to brag about accomplishments .. more insidious people have no desire to make it known they are tapping in.

Wouldn't it be a pity... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917045)

... if Davis and Cleary had an "accident" in a cell in a few days time resulting in some black eyes and lost teeth.
Its time the state showed these teenage shitheads who wields the real power.

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917113)

lol the fbi and scotland yard aren't shit compared to some of these hackers. bring it on, the feds will lose every single time.

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (2)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917163)

The gun is mightier than the keyboard, my friend

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917357)

It's sure as hell not mightier than the public, though.

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (5, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917709)

It's sure as hell not mightier than the public, though.

As long as double cheeseburgers are 99 cents, I don't think most of the public can be motivated to do much of anything.

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (1)

gtall (79522) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917853)

You know, I never did trust cows.

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (5, Funny)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917403)

I don't know....I have a Model M.

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (1)

Unending (1164935) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917565)

So do I!
Well it's a M9A1, but yep Steyr Model Ms are fantastic.

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (1, Offtopic)

sleekware (1109351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917715)

I don't know....I have a Model M.

Mod parent up. The Model M is an exceptional keyboard - arguably it could be used to deflect bullets, or possibly serve equally as well as a riot shield: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M_keyboard [wikipedia.org]

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (2)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917453)

The military disagrees. That is why they invest so much is disinformation and digital propaganda campaigns. Type the right things on a keyboard in the right places and you can have thousands of people who don't even know you exist independently choose to use guns in a way that serves your agenda.

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (2)

gtall (79522) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917887)

Evidience? Sources? Cites? Or does talking out of your ass feel good?

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917971)

See: Libya. Syria.

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (2)

w.hamra1987 (1193987) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918011)

future guns are controlled by keyboards

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917229)

Yeah, I bet thats what all those Syrian keyboard warriors thought until a paramilitary put a bullet through them.

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917235)

Haha, thanks for the lift. I really needed a good laugh this morning.

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917169)

Trolling, or just stupid?

If any organization or group deserves power, it's because they're doing good things with it. Pretty sure beating your defenseless prisoners doesn't qualify.

Re:Wouldn't it be a pity... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917507)

I understand the, sometimes essential, role of authoritarian revenge fantasies in the masturbatory process of a certain sort of person; but are you seriously suggesting that the overt use of extrajudicial violence is actually a sensible response to a group motivated by the position that the powers-that-be are unaccountable and deeply corrupt?

There isn't the slightest question about where the 'real power' lies; but surely dealing with suspected violators of various computer crime laws, against which you have evidence, and toward which the public doesn't have much sympathy, should be about the easiest place to get the desired result and keep the moral high ground, no?

Question (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917049)

If the government can listen to our calls (without a warrant) then why can't we listen to theirs?

Re:Question (5, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917145)

Obama DID promise much greater transparency in government. Of course, he completely broke that promise, so Anonymous is just holding him to it.

That's what power is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918055)

Because that's how power works: do as I say, not as I do. As long as government exists, inequality must exist.

Inequality is nothing less than the core foundation and first prerequsite of political power (a special "right" to employ coercion as a business model). Where coercion is present, equality is not.

Dragnet (2, Insightful)

TankSpanker04 (1266400) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917051)

Based on the vague discussion details and how the FBI sent out an email with the conference call number and password, it sounds more likely to be a setup by the FBI to lure Anon into the call so they could glean more location data off of them.

Re:Dragnet (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917151)

Based on the vague discussion details and how the FBI sent out an email with the conference call number and password, it sounds more likely to be a setup by the FBI to lure Anon into the call so they could glean more location data off of them.

Nah. Never expect cleverness where carelessness would as easily explain how it was achieved.

Some agent has been found and his mailbox is regularly visited for content of interest. Use some better security, send out a honeypot once in a while and see who connects, etc. This is a lesson for FBI and Scotland Yard not to take their security for granted. Could have been worse.

I'm certain anyone else who was privy to these conference calls is highly annoyed at the exposure, which will result in some changes.

Re:Dragnet (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917739)

Besides, anyone who would hit so close to the enemy through a traceable connection is a moron.

Re:Dragnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917531)

Never assume there is an "Evil Plan", when simple stupidity will suffice to explain the situation... :-)

They aren't heroes (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917071)

Anonymous aren't heroes. They're the worst type of vigilantes, who in their own minds are drunk with power. They're the internet equivalent of a mob of Molotov-cocktail tossing anarchists who burn things down because it's fun to do. They rationalize their behavior any way they can, and I imagine the replies to this comment will be to do the same. Now they're being apprehended and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them?

Re:They aren't heroes (0, Troll)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917177)

So it's wrong to make sure the government isn't up to no good? You sound like you would have been a loyal Nazi sympathizer back in the 30s.

Re:They aren't heroes (3)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917465)

So it's wrong to make sure the government isn't up to no good? You sound like you would have been a loyal Nazi sympathizer back in the 30s.

All this is doing is making government more careful.

And resulting in the occasional arrest of some child with parents who don't check up on them often enough.

Reminds me of Oliver Wendell Jones from Bloom County.

Re:They aren't heroes (4, Insightful)

HFShadow (530449) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917519)

If you can't make an argument without making some stupid stereotypical nazi comment, you probably shouldn't be making the argument.

It's not that it's wrong to watch the government, it's wrong how they do it.

Re:They aren't heroes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917587)

You sound like you would have been a loyal Nazi sympathizer back in the 30s.

Godwin in one! Congratulations sir! Oh, and you make sure the government does what you want by *voting*

Re:They aren't heroes (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917621)

Believe it or not, there are shades of grey between "I don't want 4chan dabbling in national security" and "I am a genocidal totalitarian".

Re:They aren't heroes (1, Funny)

DrGamez (1134281) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917661)

SO close to Godwin's law, not even half an hour after the post hit the page too. Damn.

Re:They aren't heroes (3, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917771)

So it's wrong to make sure the government isn't up to no good? You sound like you would have been a loyal Nazi sympathizer back in the 30s.

Didn't waste any time getting to Godwin, did we?

There's a big difference between being an active citizen and doing common sense things to hold your government accountable, and undertaking what is essentially an intelligence op not too different from what a hostile foreign spy agency would have done against your own government. You need to put away the silly V for Vendetta mask and realize that this is way out of bounds. This isn't protesting, this isn't marching, this isn't a hunger strike. This is a direct attack on law enforcement, and that's only going to end in one way.

Godwin==Orwell (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918041)

Invoking "Godwin's Law" is tantamount to accusation of "ThoughtCrime".

Re:They aren't heroes (0, Redundant)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917789)

Seriously. I'm not a big fan of Anonymous's tactics, but I'm not a big fan of the FBI's tactics, either. And historically, we know that far more damage is done by unconstrained police forces than by Molotov cocktail tossing anarchists.

Re:They aren't heroes (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917859)

So it's wrong to make sure the government isn't up to no good? You sound like you would have been a loyal Nazi sympathizer back in the 30s.

The image that came to my mind was the guy planted near the back of the crowd whose job is to shout "Yeah!" at the right times.

Re:They aren't heroes (2, Insightful)

Bicx (1042846) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917889)

If Anonymous were a legitimate organization worth respecting, they wouldn't be doing stupid shit like uploading an intercepted FBI/Scotland Yard conversation regarding their own investigation. Even if the U.S. were equivalent to Nazi Germany, I still wouldn't endorse Anon. A legitimate movement has a well-defined goal and an end game with a mature means to reach it.

Please avoid personal attacks on Slashdot just because you don't agree. Yours was particularly tasteless and inflammatory.

Re:They aren't heroes (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917981)

mod Grishnakh up

Re:They aren't heroes (5, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917359)

They're the worst type of vigilantes, who in their own minds are drunk with power. They're the internet equivalent of a mob of Molotov-cocktail tossing anarchists who burn things down because it's fun to do. They rationalize their behavior any way they can

The problem is this same statement pretty well applies to the FBI and CIA and insert Gov agency here since 9/11.

Re:They aren't heroes (2)

Erect Horsecock (655858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917367)

Says Anonymous Coward

hey - those who modded parent up .... (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917395)

i know a good place that sells spectacular postals. i can cut you a deal.

Re:They aren't heroes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917409)

Anonymous aren't heroes. They're the worst type of vigilantes, who in their own minds are drunk with power. They're the internet equivalent of a mob of Molotov-cocktail tossing anarchists who burn things down because it's fun to do. They rationalize their behavior any way they can, and I imagine the replies to this comment will be to do the same. Now they're being apprehended and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them?

Thanks Sunstein sponsored "Agent Provocateur"

http://www.vdare.com/posts/sunstein-and-agent-provocateurs

Re:They aren't heroes (5, Interesting)

SendBot (29932) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917451)

I mean this question in all seriousness: In this new information age in which we find ourselves, who ARE the heroes and who are the villains among these?

1. Wikileaks / Bradley Manning / Julian Assange
2. The justice department in conjunction with the overzealous copyright lobby and their partner brain slugs attached to the heads of the US executive branch
3. "Illegal" immigrants
4. The 1% that siphons wealth out of the country so they can get a generous cut along the way
5. The proletariat who are mostly content with the way things are, but would be fully content if there was just more of it.
6. Television news media
7. The US congress
8. The US military
9. Anonymous / Lulzsec / 2600

Here's my OPINION (for what it's worth, don't feel obligated to buy it)
Heroes: 1,3,8,9
Villains: 2,4,6,7
Undecided / Neutral: 5

What destruction has Anonymous caused that compares to suppression of the 1st amendment? They're effectively just calling shenanigans loud enough for everyone to hear, and I find it hilarious how much offense their opponents take in response.

Re:They aren't heroes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917741)

Heroes: nobody.
Problems: 2,3,4,7
Hapless victims: 1,3,5,8
Sketchy characters: 1,9
No longer relevant: 6

Re:They aren't heroes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917835)

Nobody is a hero or a villain, every action must be considered in its context. If I were to beat you up for trying to rob a rich lawyer to feed your family, who's which? Am I a villain for beating you into a pulp or a hero for saving the other guy's money? Are you the hero for doing what you can to take care of your family or a villain for trying to rob a man?
Computers may be binary, but the world sure as hell isn't.

Posting AC due to having already moderated. Address responses to 'ThunderBird89'.

Re:They aren't heroes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917503)

And you don't think 'drunk with power' is an accurate description of the government, too?

Re:They aren't heroes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917559)

You are anonymous.

Re:They aren't heroes (5, Insightful)

eddy (18759) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917611)

Well, if the FBI and the Yard does not have anything to hide, then why are they so upset about being listened in on? They LOVE to live in a surveillance society so much that they're the primary force in bringing it to be!

You should ALWAYS listen to what the police say.

Re:They aren't heroes (4, Interesting)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917625)

>Anonymous aren't heroes. They're the worst type of vigilantes

Perspective, wherefore art thou? The worst type of vigilantes rip people apart, physically - body from limb, burn homes, kill families and innocent people; baying, pitch-fork-wielding, lynching, bloodthirsty mobs.

Personally, I see Anonymous as a cross between Robin Hood and Loki.

I'm not saying nobody's going to get hurt, but part of me really rather likes them.

Re:They aren't heroes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918033)

I second this.
I don't know that they are really going to make a change in the established hierarchy, but they are a lot of fun.

Re:They aren't heroes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917787)

Anonymous aren't heroes. They're the worst type of vigilantes

President Assad - is that you?

Re:They aren't heroes (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918035)

I am a well-adjusted, tax-paying, home-owning, voting, employed, married, graduate-educated, 30-something American citizen. My political views are fairly main stream. It is remarkable how freedom and privacy I've lost and how much power the government has gained in my lifetime. I want more freedom and more privacy, even if I must pay with safety and money. I no longer see the police and the federal security apparatus as working in my interests. It is gratifying to see someone take them on and win. The Anonymous idea is intoxicating; even if it is rough around the edges. I wish them the best.

--ANON, JD, MBA

Like Watching at The Zoo... (4, Funny)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917081)

...as some idiot climbs the fence to the bear exhibit so they can cuddle with the huge teddy tear. You just know it's not going to end well.

Anon can't stay one step ahead forever.

Re:Like Watching at The Zoo... (1)

owenferguson (521762) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917153)

Watch that Teddy tear him a new one...

Re:Like Watching at The Zoo... (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917567)

Well, that typo worked out well then I guess.

Re:Like Watching at The Zoo... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917203)

I wouldn't be so sure. If you think government agents are as intelligent and competent as they're portrayed on TV shows, you're sadly mistaken.

Re:Like Watching at The Zoo... (2)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917341)

And I don't think Anonymous is as smart as they and their fans believe they are.

Re:Like Watching at The Zoo... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917223)

Anon can't stay one step ahead forever.

Anonymous is an idea.

Re:Like Watching at The Zoo... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917881)

I guess you sort of don't get the point of anonymous. They don't two [insert fecal reference here] because they are anyone and everyone, they blend right into the crowd. It could be anyone you know or don't know and people don't even have to join anonymous to be anonymous. These are basically random acts of terror. They don't really "decide" to do things as a group. Some random guy out there just suddenly decides, hey I'm going to go and do this and this and announces it to everyone. For example, the "public" opinion in "anonymous," which just so happens to match the general public opinion at large at the time, was that the Sony attacks and other related video game hacks were going to far and undermined public opinion of the "group" as a whole. Also, a lot of them are gamers too, so they weren't too happy with the idea of attacking gamers, in general. But, one or two "members" just decided gamers needed to be trolled, and did so. And, the fact that other anonymous members were annoyed by it, just made their trolling sweeter. Also, there were other members who simply get off on following the rest of the sheep in any attack they decide to do, so even though they might not have been in favor of it they just went along with it because that's where the action was.

They're the epitomy of a pure anarchy. They coordinate by accident, and when they don't they act as lone wolves and do things of their own accord and agendas. And, the FBI and powers that be catch a few here and there, but it's like trying to stop whistle blowing for example there's always going to be more out there "joining" every day. Except that they're not really "joining" per se, all you need to do to be a supposed member is commit a random attack, brag about it, and stay anonymous. The moment your identity is known, e.g. you got doxxed, then you're no longer a "member" of the group. The ones they catch don't know any of the other members. Hopefully, that puts things in perspective.

Basically, they're unstoppable. Maybe you can scare the group as a whole, sort of. For example, when some members were captured during a protest and taken by the Mexican mafias. Other "members" essentially negotiated for their safe release, using probably the only method they had at their disposal, blackmail. However, the mafia said to anonymous, that they would release the members but that if anonymous continued to expose and attack the mafia they would kill 1 innocent a day or something like that. Guess what anonymous did after their member's release? Sure enough, they went right back to exposing / attacking the mafia. Some "members" are amoral and really don't care, and some do care. But, the ones who care can't stop the ones that don't from doing simply anything they please. Just like if you picked a handful of random members of the general population, you'll find some people that care about others, some that don't, and some that may even amount to being criminal.

The concept of anonymous is a pretty dangerous thing. Just like the war on terror, it's asymmetrical warfare. I'm reminded of an old saying, "It is easier to destroy than create." -- Niven's 6th law.

They're probably going to be with us a very long time, the genie is out of the bottle. Even if you tracked every single communication and person in the world, they're going to find a way around it. They have a lot of hackers as members, great ones and not so great ones. Ironically, probably a hundred years from now they'll be the only thing standing between the average population and an absolute world totalitarianism that controls everything we think, say, and do. That's the only comforting thought I can think of about this whole fiasco.

Anonymous is the least of their worries... (5, Insightful)

TravTrav (1236742) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917119)

After all, if what amounts to a few script-kiddies can get this deep into confidential material, how much more material can a determined, knowledgeable, and well-funded adversary get?

Re:Anonymous is the least of their worries... (5, Insightful)

eddy (18759) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917269)

Perhaps the lesson is rather that Anon isn't ONLY made up of scriptkiddies. I know, goes against the talking points, but at some point they do get a bit tired.

Re:Anonymous is the least of their worries... (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917483)

Right, Anonymous does have a few competent people who are of course in no way, shape, or form their leaders, they just happen to direct the actions of everyone else in Anonymous and do most of the stuff that keeps Anonymous relevant. But they are not their leaders, because Anonymous doesn't have leaders, everyone knows that.

Re:Anonymous is the least of their worries... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918061)

Anonymous has leaders. In the land of no leaders, the guy who suggests things first, even if nobody is "required" to listen, *is* a leader. You don't have to have votes or a formal structure to have people that are listened to more (or just talk more) than the others.

Two news in a row (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917133)

http://idle.slashdot.org/story/12/02/03/1537237/chinese-boy-claims-to-have-cat-like-night-vision
and now this... The truth is out there?

Cone of Silence (5, Funny)

WillgasM (1646719) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917141)

And that's why I always insist that we use the cone of silence.

Re:Cone of Silence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917679)

And that's why I always insist that we use the cone of silence.

WHAT?! I can't hear you!

How convenient (5, Interesting)

ebunga (95613) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917171)

"Anonymous is a dangerous threat to national security. They can even listen in on phone calls on secure lines. We must have mandatory validated identification of all users of the Internet and an end to anonymity to protect our secret operations."

FBI, bunch of wimps (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917207)

Let's see them try doing this to the zetas.

Re:FBI, bunch of wimps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917869)

Zetas? easy hack bank of america, wire few billions of dollars to several hundred professional killers around the globe with list of all Zeta members as targets, number of Zetas would approach zero in few days tops :)
even if some of those killers were Zetas themselves they would kill each other for that kind of money, so that does not change much :)

I say this is bogus (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917243)

False flag or whatever.

If the FBI was on to them, and they had a snooping access... why the hell would they reveal so? Their life could depend on this source of info.

It's not the kind of thing anyone would waste on a stunt.

Call me paranoid, but Anonymous is the next step in the "terrorism" sham. Terrorists were a great formless, nameless, infinite source of fear out of borders. Anon is great for in-borders.

If I were part of your spook governments, and my job was to keep you frightened and under surveilance, I'd be putting all the firewood I could into Anonymous' fire.

The Scientific Method. (1)

Flipstylee (1932884) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917253)

The best way, "Employ your time in improving yourself by other men's writings, so that you shall gain easily what others have labored hard for." -Socrates.

Just try to use a method that keeps actual information hidden away, until you can detect intrusion,
and do like everyone else does: work from there.

Re:The Scientific Method. (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917563)

The best way, "Employ your time in improving yourself by other men's writings, so that you shall gain easily what others have labored hard for." -Socrates.

That is a spurious quotation [wikiquote.org] . Please don't perpetuate stuff like that. Anyone who has read Plato and has seen the ambiguous view of writing in the Socratic dialogues can tell right off that an attribution to Socrates is bogus.

Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiots (3, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917413)

This just shows what a bunch of clueless morons Anonymous is.
They perform a brilliant bit of counter-intel and gained an upper-hand by finding a way to exploit the FBI and eavesdrop on their conversations.

And what do they do with this victory? Do they send the FBI tripping over itself on an internal mole-hunt by going to the media with a tiny bit of this info explained as "information leaked by a source within the FBI?". Do they patiently sit and gather more intel, maybe useful information to help them evade arrest or gather bits of public interest in other cases for later use?

No, they broadcast it to the world with details on how they did it, all but going to the FBI and closing the weakness themselves.
These jerkoffs have shown once and for all that they are just a bunch of egotistical little shits who are indeed just in it for the lulz and "street cred".
I doubt we'll see anything come of Anonymous aside from more LOIC attacks, credit card thefts and web page vandalism.
They've shown all the intelligence and finesse of a group of anarchistic thugs.

Re:Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiot (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917919)

Well first, they'd been bragging about being able to access the FBI's communications for some time, apparently.

And second, you can't exactly keep Anonymous exploits secret. That's why when an operation requires secrecy they split off little private groups like LulzSec.

Re:Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiot (5, Interesting)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917945)

They're apparently much smarter than you are.

The FBI is what it is because it outwardly appears to operate effectively. If you can demonstrate well enough that it is not effective it will be dismantled either through staffing changes or actual full-on dismantling.

You don't try to tie up the FBI's time, because it will just cost the tax payer more money. You throw egg in it's face as often as you possibly can until it's a laughing stock and must be replaced/removed in order to save face.

Again, clearly much smarter than you

Re:Anonymous is just a bunch of lulz-seeking idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917991)

I don't think anyone ever said they were in it for anything other than the lulz. lulz.

Wow. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917497)

This basically means, anonymous is no joke. if they can intercept this, they can intercept even more delicate and dirty stuff and release them.

this seems to be both a feat, and a threat/prodding stick. ...........

not that governments did not have it coming though. as many of you said, they listen to every one of us, and yet dont tell us shit. well, someone does that for us now. im sure they are rabid about these new 'terrorists'. talk about 'by the people for the people'.

Probably just a conference call dial-in service... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917603)

No leet skillzzzz required.

Eavesdropping on phone calls: good or bad? (2, Informative)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917605)

When Anonymous does it: good. When News Corp does it: bad.

Selective outrage certainly is a useful propaganda tool, isn't it?

Re:Eavesdropping on phone calls: good or bad? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917803)

It's not about who's doing the eavesdropping it's about who is being eavesdropped on.

In once case private individuals, in the other the government (or government agents).

Re:Eavesdropping on phone calls: good or bad? (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917849)

When Anonymous does it: good. When News Corp does it: bad.

Selective outrage certainly is a useful propaganda tool, isn't it?

News Corp isn't a government agency. News Corp isn't a law enforcement group. Strawmen are certainly useful, no?

Re:Eavesdropping on phone calls: good or bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918015)

News Corp isn't a government agency.

Anonymous is a government agency? I must have missed that memo.

Project Mayhem (2)

Droog57 (2516452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917649)

Love the big brass ones that these guys have. I don't agree with much of their agenda, but really have to admire their tenacity in the face of serious opposition. Impressive stunt.

And this is why they want to censor internet. (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917687)

imagine someone intercepting the calls of some industry execs doing shitty dealings with government and posting them online.

imagine hollywood goons pushing government bureaucrats or representatives/senators to do shitty stuff for them for their expense in a backroom, in all the dirty, non politically correct language those backrooms tend to have, and post them online.

imagine this happened before sopa was killed........ there wouldnt even be a day of protest needed to kill sopa.

or, nuclear industry pressuring government to play with statistics to keep dangerous old plants running........ ..........

see, this is why they want to censor internet. and, they would do this regardless of what we, as the people did. because, it was certain that, someone (anonymous or not, or even a single dutiful citizen or some repenting low level govt. bureaucrat) could post these online some day.

thats why they have been running all kinds of schemes to censor internet. and how they would not stop if there wasnt anyone (leave aside anon) doing these. they NEED internet censored so such things can be averted.

these stuff, should be happening through the hands of the government itself. transparency, remember? where is it ? NOWHERE. and those who attempt to provide that transparency, are now 'terrorists'. ........

we are fighting a very battle for the soul of the internet, free speech, and transparency. and it is happening here and now. we should do everything in our power to prevent censorship, sopa, acta, pipa, schmogga, whatever. its a 'we should fight in the landing grounds, and in the hills' situation. we should never surrender.

this is not the fight of anonymous. this is our fight, which we have not been fighting yet. we must fight it, to not lose what we hold dear ; internet.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?