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!

Accused LulzSec Members Left Trail of Clues Online

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the didn't-need-sherlock-for-this-one dept.

Security 221

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.'"

cancel ×

221 comments

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

So it goes (5, Insightful)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319885)

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?

Re:So it goes (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319909)

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

Re:So it goes (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319927)

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

Re:So it goes (1, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319979)

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.

Re:So it goes (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320321)

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.

Re:So it goes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321179)

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.

Re:So it goes (2)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321315)

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?

Dump summery (5, Informative)

Weezul (52464) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320119)

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.

Re:Dump summery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320507)

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.

Protest doesn't require breaking the law. (5, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320589)

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.

Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. (4, Insightful)

bug1 (96678) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320995)

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 !

Re:Protest doesn't require breaking the law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321309)

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.

Well then they goofed up. (5, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320521)

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.

Re:Dump summery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320735)

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

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

Re:Dump summery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321961)

Anonymous are a bunch of douche-nozzles as well.

Re:So it goes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320519)

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. Always plenty more like them where they came from.

Re:So it goes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321543)

"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.

When compilers are outlawed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319891)

... only outlaws will own compilers.

Re:When compilers are outlawed... (5, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319955)

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.

Re:When compilers are outlawed... (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321743)

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.

Send them to Gitmo... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319897)

throw away the key...

Re:Send them to Gitmo... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320217)

What for?

Re:Send them to Gitmo... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320683)

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

This is fucking retarded. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319933)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (5, Insightful)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319971)

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!

Re:This is fucking retarded. (2, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320373)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (5, Insightful)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320445)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320773)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321261)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (2)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321805)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321893)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (1)

ediron2 (246908) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321341)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (4, Funny)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321391)

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

Lulzsec Overdrive (1)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321699)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320821)

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

Re:This is fucking retarded. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319995)

Piss off. Go flip burgers you asshat.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319997)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (4, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320053)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (4, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320919)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321119)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (1)

whoop (194) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321633)

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

Re:This is fucking retarded. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320107)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320299)

free World

lol wut

Re:This is fucking retarded. (1)

NeoMorphy (576507) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320417)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320605)

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.

Re:This is fucking retarded. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320661)

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.

You don't say... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319969)

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

What utterly incompetent tradecraft (5, Insightful)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319985)

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.

Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft (2, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320527)

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.

Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321469)

> 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.

Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321713)

> 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.

Re:What utterly incompetent tradecraft (3, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321825)

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

Story time (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319999)

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.

Re:Story time (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320055)

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?

Re:Story time (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320109)

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?

Re:Story time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320137)

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

Re:Story time (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320149)

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.

Re:Story time (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321953)

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.

Re:Story time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320211)

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

Do your attention whoring elsewhere.

Re:Story time (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320231)

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?

Re:Story time (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320645)

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.

Re:Story time (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320253)

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.

Re:Story time (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320301)

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.

Re:Story time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320615)

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.

Re:Story time (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320855)

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. :)

WTF Soulskill (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320009)

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

in plain site... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320033)

"it turns out that many had been hiding in plain site"

In plain site....? Nice editing.

Sounds like any other security specialist. (2)

Njovich (553857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320057)

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

Never use a connection which can be traced to you (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320063)

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.

Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y (0)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320569)

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.

Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321209)

EVERYBODY RATS.

It's rule #1.

Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321731)

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.

Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321933)

"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.

Re:Never use a connection which can be traced to y (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321471)

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.

The Irish Connection (4, Interesting)

CanEHdian (1098955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320081)

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?

This is what happens when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320101)

... 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.

Re:This is what happens when... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320157)

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.

The problem is thinking. They though. . . (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320127)

tEy VV4Z 3Lee7e.

Comply or Die. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320129)

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

Re:Comply or Die. (2)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320539)

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.

fir=st (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320153)

The price to pay. (1)

Tasha26 (1613349) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320287)

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

Multiple handles? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320295)

Does Martyn suffer from multiple personality disorder? Or does he just like using sock puppets in his online correspondence?

What's in a name? A loser by any other name is... still a loser.

Knock Knock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320315)

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.

elite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320431)

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?

Anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320451)

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.

Law has nothing to do with ethics. (2)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320485)

"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.

Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320985)

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.

Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321125)

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 ineffective.

Anonymous isn't much more effective but at least they take on the cause of free speech/ liberty and human rights. Their methods of DDosing websites however seems very stupid as it doesn't seem to do much to promote free speech, liberty or human rights and it only attracts law enforcement to them. I think maybe if they went about things a bit more intelligently and didn't take such an anti-government approach they might accomplish more.

If there are bad people all around the world abusing the people, work with the individuals in authority who want to stop them. Give evidence to the people who can make use of it, which in most cases is the authority and if the police truly are corrupt then expose that. But just DDosing a website isn't exposing anything, it isn't changing anything, it isn't solving anything but it's bringing heat to people who actually want to see changes.

Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321649)

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.

Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321751)

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?

Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321787)

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.

Re:Law has nothing to do with ethics. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39321855)

"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.

Plain sight [Score: 5, but -1 because Soulskill] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39320623)

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

Anonymous should focus more on getting evidence (2)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39320707)

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.

Re:Anonymous should focus more on getting evidence (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321587)

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 [wikipedia.org] ? 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.

Plain SIGHT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321195)

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

So they all were N00bs. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39321835)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?