Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Dumps Australian Telco Data Online

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the fun-times-down-under dept.

Australia 87

lukehopewell1 writes "After the threats, admissions and delays, hacktivists protesting a data retention scheme proposed by the Australian Government's National Security Inquiry have begun dumping data gleaned from an Australian telco — presumably AAPT. Anonymous is in the process of dumping government and business customer data onto Pastebin for the world to see under the guise of Operation Australia. This episode is far from over, however. We're likely to see more data trickle out over the coming days, considering that the group has promised 40GB worth of leaks."

cancel ×

87 comments

"Hacktivists" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804239)

These clowns at Anonymous give activism a bad name. They are nothing more than internet tough guys who can hide behind their anonymity and risk nothing.
Real activists put their name, reputation and possibly their lives on the line for the causes they so believe in.
These guys are nothing but dumb little kids.

Re:"Hacktivists" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804273)

Real activists put their name, reputation and possibly their lives on the line for the causes they so believe in.
These guys are nothing but dumb little kids.

Person A gets shot at, gets tasered, gets arrested, etc.

Person B is "dumb".

Re:"Hacktivists" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804785)

Real activists put their name, reputation and possibly their lives on the line for the causes they so believe in.
These guys are nothing but dumb little kids.

Person A gets shot at, gets tasered, gets arrested, etc.

Person B is "dumb".

And why should Anonymous be seen or even be allowed to be they are the modern activist

Re:"Hacktivists" (-1)

ewieling (90662) | about 2 years ago | (#40805497)

Person A could be a hero. Person B is just a pussy. I'm a person B sort of person, but I respect person A.

Re:"Hacktivists" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40805853)

Person B is just a pussy.

For what? Not taking on their opponents head-on? I mostly only care about the method that actually works, but if you're born with a brain, you're not a "pussy" for using it. It's like people think that you're a coward because you don't have fist fights all the time or let someone beat you up or something...

Not saying anonymous is right here, but indirectly fighting someone and using your brain doesn't mean you're a "pussy."

Re:"Hacktivists" (1)

KingBenny (1301797) | about 2 years ago | (#40810069)

well, good sir, there you have the charm. person b isnt even interested in being the hero. Work in the shadows all your life, never get any compensation, fame or recognition. I think that counts for some respect. Unless you think Assanges (a.o.) situation is some kind of martyrdom according to good old christian tradition i'm still pro-nonymous. They tried outing some of the cartels in south/mid americas but weren't careful enough. So a few heads got separated from a few people ... would they be heroes if they just posted that stuff with their names and faces on facebook? I think they'd rather be , as you call it, 'dumb' in that case , silly little kids tsk

Re:"Hacktivists" (0)

kestasjk (933987) | about 2 years ago | (#40806321)

They're both dumb.. breaking the law to make a point / make headlines ( / make trouble / make yourself feel powerful ) just isn't a decent way to effect change.

Re:"Hacktivists" (4, Insightful)

Annorax (242484) | about 2 years ago | (#40806369)

You must not have been made to read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience in high school

Your loss.

http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html [eserver.org]

Re:"Hacktivists" (1)

lindi (634828) | about 2 years ago | (#40806445)

Civil Disobedience means that you break some law openly and are prepared to take the consequences. I understood that people behind this data leak have not even told their names.

Re:"Hacktivists" (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#40807963)

Civil Disobedience means that you break some law openly and are prepared to take the consequences.

No it does not. Prominent counter examples are that of people sheltering jews in Nazi Germany and participating in the underground railroad.

Re:"Hacktivists" (1)

lindi (634828) | about 2 years ago | (#40808047)

Yeah I guess the term is not clearly defined. I'm mostly familiar with Gandhi's definition where the whole idea is to not resist arrests.

Re:"Hacktivists" (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#40808147)

I am all for the people who are willing and able to put their freedom on the line for the cause - they deserve lots of respect for taking that route. I'm just not willing to disqualify other, perhaps less dedicated, protestors as well.

Re:"Hacktivists" (4, Funny)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 years ago | (#40806951)

You must not have been made to read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience in high school

...or he chose to disobey the teacher

Re:"Hacktivists" (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#40806707)

Guess there are a damn lot of indecent people in eastern Europe, then...

Hint: Just because it's the law doesn't make it right.

Re:"Hacktivists" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40807763)

That's probably the stupidest thing I've heard in quite a long time.
Go read some history, friend.

- Sigg3.net

Re:"Hacktivists" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804409)

You sound like a government shill. Care to out your IRL name and home address? Otherwise stupid government shill is stupid.

Re:"Hacktivists" (5, Funny)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 2 years ago | (#40804415)

says the "Anonymous Coward"

Re:"Hacktivists" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804485)

says the "Anonymous Coward"

Says the non-government shill "Anonymous Coward".

FTFY

But you couldn't possibly have been backing up the OP government shill, righ TheRealMindChild? If so, I hope /. is watching.

Re:"Hacktivists" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804537)

thatsthejoke.jpg

They do not forgive. They do not forget. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804431)

Did you seriously call them clowns!? You are so fucked, dude. Enjoy your butt love.

Re:"Hacktivists" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804685)

It's ok. The word hacktivists is used so you know they are failures.

Re:"Hacktivists" (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#40806711)

Damn those sour grapes!

Re:"Hacktivists" (0)

http (589131) | about 2 years ago | (#40805451)

(i) So says an anonymous coward. (ii) Fuck you you fucking fuck. This is a logical and argumentive fallacy, akin to the "No True Scotsman". There exist government agents that have no compunction about ruining the life of a merely annoying person. Is a soldier less brave for taking the precaution of wearing body armour in combat?

Re:"Hacktivists" (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40805925)

(i) So says an anonymous coward.

I don't see how that's related unless he took part in the activities...

Even if he did, I don't see how it matters. I don't agree with what he said, though.

Re:"Hacktivists" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40806571)

Real Activists are ACTIVE. They changed the world. Their common martyrdom is a side-effect of their actions.

Repost day (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804247)

Re:Repost day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804493)

That article had no life to it. I think they're trying to perform CPR and finally bring in the light. Good luck.

Wikileaks wannabees. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804319)

OK, and what will this accomplish?

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about 2 years ago | (#40804343)

I'm normally not a fan of this stuff, but in this case it actually makes a good point.

They've shown that they can steal data from the ISP.

If a bunch of your personal data starts being stored at the ISP, they or other criminals could steal that data as well. Basically having the data there is putting customers at great risk, and they have just demonstrated that the ISP is incapable of protecting the data.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (0)

Ostracus (1354233) | about 2 years ago | (#40804437)

And if I break the window and swipe the TVs at the local electronics shop I've proven how lousy their security is.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804451)

What's your point? This just proves that they shouldn't keep a bunch of innocent people's data. It's a privacy nightmare.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804455)

Yes but they're not forcing you to store all your private data in their poor security shop right next to the big picture window. Your analogy is like a car: nonsensical.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804457)

And if I break the window and swipe the TVs at the local electronics shop I've proven how lousy their security is.

That is a poor analogy.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (4, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 years ago | (#40804511)

Which is a good point, if the government is passing legislation forcing you keep your TV at the local electronics store.

Poor analogy is poor.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (2)

rohan972 (880586) | about 2 years ago | (#40804567)

The local electronics shop is not the subject of new proposed legislation regarding major changes to government surveillance and tracking of the whole population. This action, IMO, qualifies as valid political speech. It is completely different to an act of vandalism or theft for the sake of it.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804805)

I wonder how many of the T.J. Maxx situation felt OK with the release of their information? After all that too demonstrated that one shouldn't collect information on customers. No, a government didn't mandate the collection, but if one wanted to do business with T.J. Maxx, one had to give up the goods.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (2)

Anrego (830717) | about 2 years ago | (#40804629)

Right.

And if there was a law stating I had to keep a copy of all my personal documents at said electronics shop.. your demonstration would be a good thing to point to as a reason why this is a bad idea..

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (1)

quenda (644621) | about 2 years ago | (#40804781)

And if I break the window and swipe the TVs at the local electronics shop I've proven how lousy their security is.

I guess the TV shops should not store their cash and finacial records in the window display at night then. I think they know that already.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (1)

aynoknman (1071612) | about 2 years ago | (#40805329)

And if I break the window and swipe the TVs at the local electronics shop I've proven how lousy their security is.

And if your government passes a law requiring local electronics shop to store masses of your personal data. You've also proven how lousy your security is. You've also proven that your government doesn't pass good laws.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#40806725)

If they store my TV, then it would probably prove the point that they should not be allowed to handle my TV...

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808841)

That's why local electronics shops got more than a window for security.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | about 2 years ago | (#40804849)

OK, so basically the people's information being released are being punished twice. Once due to the government mandate which I assume they can't opt-out of, and two by those who apparently couldn't influence the government to change, took it out on them. I fail to see how anonymous is the one to root for here. Anonymous isn't the one that's going to suffer from either theirs or the government's actions. Collateral damage as it were I'm sure Anonymous will rally many to their cause.

Here's your explanation (5, Insightful)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 2 years ago | (#40804929)

... I fail to see how anonymous is the one to root for here.

Well then, let me explain it.

Government is doing bad things. Specifically, it is always doing things which are against the interests of the people, or society as a whole.

All attempts at changing this behaviour have failed.

Anonymous is trying new tactics. By making the data public, it's making the population aware of the dangers of this legislation. In effect, they are illustrating the danger by hurting the privacy of a large number of individuals. With enough popular support, maybe possibly the law will get changed.

Now, as I said, this is a new tactic. The damage to the public is minimal, and would be otherwise dwarfed by any real data breach by real hackers. In that case, the information would be used for criminal purposes so the damage would be much greater, and the company would naturally deny that a breach had happened.

Now, you might not see this as an effective strategy, and indeed it may not be.

But this brings us back to the first point, which is that government is doing bad things and is unresponsive to the needs of the people. Since all other avenues of influence have failed, what remains would appear to be armed revolt.

When the system gets bad enough to piss off a large portion of the population, that's what will happen.

So you can pooh-pooh the attempts by Anonymous to try alternate means, but with no alternative you're effectively saying that revolt is the only option.

I, for one, applaud their efforts. I hope they come up with many more creative ways to make the people's voice heard in the halls of government, before we have to use armed rebellion.

Re:Here's your explanation (1, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40804973)

> The damage to the public is minimal, and would be otherwise dwarfed by any real data breach by real hackers.

It seems to me the damage is actually worse. Real hackers wouldn't make the information as widely available for any two-bit crook to use.

Re:Here's your explanation (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40804993)

If people speak up against the law and it gets discarded, the 'damage' may not be worse. Of course, the government is determined to violate people's privacy, and people don't seem to care (yet), so I doubt it.

Re:Here's your explanation (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#40807985)

It seems to me the damage is actually worse. Real hackers wouldn't make the information as widely available for any two-bit crook to use.

"Real" hackers wouldn't let the victims know they are victims. Widespread publication essentially nulls out the value of this data to any two-bit crook.

Re:Here's your explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40830117)

making the data available right now will allow for the needed important information to be disabled and corrected by those affected. In the alternative scenario which your referencing you would have to try and claim that your data was breached but have no public reference to prove it. This can be and is often difficult or impossible to do especially with current law enforcement.

Here's your revolution. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40805213)

Ah, yes. Interesting how the "People's Liberation Army" seems to kill more than it liberates. Next time Anonymous wants to represent the people, ask the people first if they want Anonymous as their representative.

Re:Here's your explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40805671)

Since all other avenues of influence have failed, what remains would appear to be armed revolt.

Har har har har, seriously?

People have much more to worry about from the general public than the fricking government. There are enough hucksters, thugs and socio/psychopaths out there to be much more worrisome than a government agency, which has oversight and standards that it can be held accountable for. Now let's see what an armed revolt would mean. There would be huge danger to one's life, you wouldn't necessarily be able to trust whoever you are fighting with, and when it is over, things almost certainly would be hugely worse than they are at the moment. Most peoples needs are taken care of at the moment and have a fairly good quality of life, so such an idea, with all it's likely consequences, seems dopey, at least in the near future.

Also, this is Australia we are talking about, what arms?

A Junta Is Still a Junta, Benevolent or Not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40805879)

So Anonymous is saying government is bad because they are telling the people what's good for them without asking them. Anonymous is telling the people what's good for them without asking too. What's the difference. Oh yeah, the people get the opportunity to ELECT the government (Really? So does that mean the people have already tacitly agreed to whatever the government has done and can fire them when the next election comes around? Yes Virginia, that is exactly what I'm saying). And in Australia, it is the law that everyone who can legally vote MUST vote. I don't like Big Brother either. In any form.

Re:Here's your explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40806267)

don't you think that a government that doesn't care for people in the first place would bend to this kind of activismo or use it to prove the internet is full of bad guys and needs more control?

innocent citizen data leaked will make people coalesce around the government.

beware the line between hacktivism and emmanuel goldstein.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#40806733)

Cries like that are my only problem with the actions of Anonymous. Yes, my data is being published. But instead of blaming Anonymous for publishing them, blaming the government for recording them would be more apt. No records, nothing to steal.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#40806717)

A few years ago the German government already had the great idea to install a government backdoor to every ISP. I think it was the CCC who responded with an open letter that could be summed up with "Thanks, but it's already easy enough to hack everything around, but it's nice you thought we need help".

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (4, Insightful)

melikamp (631205) | about 2 years ago | (#40804397)

This proves conclusively that any data preserved will be readily available to the government, the law enforcement, the crooks, anyone with pile of cash, and, ironically, NOT you, the person whose privacy was sacrificed. Saving all communications is beyond retarded. I agree with RMS: obtain a court order and then start logging, not the other way around.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40805057)

This brings up what might be a stupid question. Do we know what SOP is for US ISP's?

I always assumed they retain everything, but I don't actually know.

Re:Wikileaks wannabees. (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about 2 years ago | (#40805093)

There's also quite a difference between the Wikileaks cases where data was leaked from an insider to Wikileaks, and things like this where the people getting the information weren't authorized to access it in the first place.

It not enough (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#40804447)

Every time things like these new data retention, privacy sacrificing laws are proposed, two things always happen. People exclaim doom and gloom about the theoretical problems associated with the behavior and the government assuring the public that no such abuses will occur. (Think: Social Security #s in the US and how they were never supposed to be for anything other than social security... now it's a requirement for just about any financial transaction, people have been serialized and we're all stuck with the results which were accurately predicted.) The same thing has happened again -- people saying "this is a bad idea" and government saying "nothing bad will happen, you have nothing to worry about." But now we have someone exposing the weakness and vulnerability and the potential harm that can befall the public as a result of such data collection requirements.

But I think it's not enough to demonstrate it. People have to get angry. They have to understand they shouldn't be angry at the "hacktivists" but at the laws which require data collection and retention which are otherwise needless... the government has only one goal in mind, which is to use the data against the people.

Re:It not enough (4, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#40804695)

Korea had something similar [koreatimes.co.kr] - a requirement for government issued citizen-id numbers before one could post a message on any large website.

That didn't work out so well, not because of activists, but because of actual criminals.

Re:It not enough (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#40806739)

You don't say... A government regulation that only affects honest people but not criminals? That's so unheard of!

Re:It not enough (2)

Toam (1134401) | about 2 years ago | (#40805337)

People have to get angry. They have to understand they shouldn't be angry at the "hacktivists" but at the laws which require data collection and retention

This is the hard part.

When nurses strike over pay/conditions, people (generally) get annoyed at the nurses for risking peoples safety, not the goverment (or governing body) for not resolving the problems

When teachers strike over pay/conditions, people get annoyed at the teachers for disrupting the childrens education, not the government for not resolving the problems

When people protest in the steeet, people get angry at the protestors for the inconvenience, not for the government for not resolving the problems

Re:It not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40807023)

ISP's run at a profit. Security is just a 'cost', given the government does not want to warehouse it, so the burden shift back to private enterprise, who make decisions everyday - just like BP Deepwater and Japans nuclear industry. Just a matter of time before something breaks. So it is a given that leaks will happen, and a 'risk' of just how targeted the leaks will be.

you Fa1l it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804459)

of America (GNAA) are tied 0p in

+fuck a nigga (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804473)

stupid people (1)

pbjones (315127) | about 2 years ago | (#40804943)

if they did this to prove a point, they could have just posted a sample of the data, but no, they reveal everyones data and show they have as little respect for people as the companies that they target.

Correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40805035)

Anonymous harms the people who's data they publish, and they are not the good guys. They are criminals doing criminal harm.

However, they are *also* revealing just how vulnerable the system is to crime. If the data were not logged at all, then anonymous would not be able to publish it.

So, the government should protect me from anonymous by making this level of logging illegal, rather than mandatory.

Re:Correct (3, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | about 2 years ago | (#40805123)

Anonymous harms the people who's data they publish, and they are not the good guys. They are criminals doing criminal harm.

However, they are *also* revealing just how vulnerable the system is to crime. If the data were not logged at all, then anonymous would not be able to publish it.

So, the government should protect me from anonymous by making this level of logging illegal, rather than mandatory.

That's not how it works (it's how it _should_ work though!) The government has taken steps to protect you from terrorists, but do you feel any safer for it? You say "the government should protect me from anonymous", but their idea of protecting you from anonymous will be to capture _more_ data to watch you more closely, and increase the punishments for this "terrorist" activity (including looking at the released captured data, and discussing the inadequacies of security).

(disclaimer: i've very recently given up caffeine so i'm extra cynical and extra grumpy)

steps to protect me from the terrorists? (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 2 years ago | (#40806407)

What steps exactly protect me from terrorists? They only thing that is going to stop these "terrorists" is to give them what they want. They don't do compromise. Also, the chance that you die from a terrorist attack in Australia, The US, Canada or Europe is much smaller than dying from lightning. You stand a bigger chance winning the lottery than dying from terrorists. About the only cause of death that is less likely to occur is being struck by a meteor. Why is it then, that the entire population should give up it's freedom to prevent "dying from terrorists"? I doubt that is the real reason. What is the real reason? It's probably just stupidity, but you can come up with your own conspiracy theory if you don't believe that, or any of the existing theories.

Re:Correct (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#40806583)

The government has taken steps to protect you from terrorists, but do you feel any safer for it?

Feelings are irrelevant. The objective answer is yes, you are safer. Governments in Western nations continue to arrest actual and would-be terrorists, usually before they can carry out the attack. As a result there have been few successful terrorist attacks in the Western world, the item below being one of the sad exceptions (of course we must remember that officially this was "workplace violence" by someone shouting Allah Akbar!):

Horror at Fort Hood: Gunman Nidal Malik Hasan kills 13, wounds 31 in rampage on Texas Army base [nydailynews.com]

This isn't like the magic anti-tiger stone since we have actual bodies of terrorists in jail and in the grave - that isn't true for the magic anti-tiger stone. A few examples from the US, followed by some from Australia. Examples in the UK are trivial to come by.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending February 17, 2012 [fbi.gov]

Detroit: ‘Underwear Bomber’ Sentenced to Life in Prison for Attempted Christmas Day Attack

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called “underwear bomber,” was sentenced to life in prison as a result of his guilty plea to all eight counts of a federal indictment charging him for his role in the attempted Christmas Day 2009 bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending February 10, 2012 [fbi.gov]

Minneapolis: Ohio Man Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Somali-Based Terror Group

Ahmed Hussein Mahamud pled guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to al Shabaab, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, in its fight against the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFG) and the Ethiopian military, which supports the TFG.

Chicago: Chicago Man Pleads Guilty to Attempting to Provide Funds to Support al Qaeda in Pakistan

Raja Lahrasib Khan, a Chicago taxi driver and native of Pakistan who personally provided hundreds of dollars to an alleged terrorist leader with whom he had met in his native Pakistan, pled guilty to attempting to provide additional funds to the same individual after learning he was working with al Qaeda.

Washington Field: Revolution Muslim Leader Guilty of Soliciting Murder, Promoting Extremism

Jesse Curtis Morton, aka Younus Abdullah Muhammed, pled guilty to using his position as a leader of Revolution Muslim Organization’s Internet sites to conspire to solicit murder, make threatening communications, and use the Internet to place others in fear.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending February 3, 2012 [fbi.gov]

Tampa: Florida Man Indicted for Attempting to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction

Sami Osmakac, of Pinellas Park, Florida, was charged with attempting to use weapons of mass destruction against persons and property in the U.S., as well as possessing an unregistered machine gun

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012 [fbi.gov]

Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.

Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center

U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.

Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012 [fbi.gov]

Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa

A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives.

Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011 [fbi.gov]

Seattle: Man Pleads Guilty in Plot to Attack Military Processing Center

A former Los Angeles man pled guilty in connection with the June 2011 plot to attack a military installation in Seattle.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 2, 2011 [fbi.gov]

San Diego: Woman Guilty of Conspiring to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

Nima Yusuf, 25, a resident of San Diego, pled guilty to conspiring to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization. Full Story

More here [fbi.gov] .

And a few from Australia:

Australian police arrest 18 on terrorism charges - 11:09PM BST 03 Aug 2009 [telegraph.co.uk]
5 Men Sentenced in Australian Terrorism Plot [nytimes.com]
Australia Arrests 17 People in Anti-Terrorism Raids - November 8, 2005 [bloomberg.com]
Australia arrests three in counter-terrorism sweep [redorbit.com]

You say "the government should protect me from anonymous", but their idea of protecting you from anonymous will be to capture _more_ data to watch you more closely, and increase the punishments for this "terrorist" activity

Well, no, their idea of protecting you would be to arrenst, try, convict, and jail more Anonymous members. Its been done numerous times before.

Five arrested in high-profile cyberattacks [cnn.com]
Suspected Anonymous Hackers Arrested Across South America and Europe [foxnews.com]
16 Suspected 'Anonymous' Hackers Arrested in Nationwide Sweep [foxnews.com]

Re:Correct (1)

Pav (4298) | about 2 years ago | (#40807089)

...and if the powers that be decided to label maoris as the new terrorists and public enemy number one and treated them accordingly, eventually you'd have lots of maori terrorists... what's your point? It's exactly the same issue with african americans - people will live up to all of your stereotypes if you treat them that way. Just look at your average dictator... when they start thinking that EVERYONE is out to get them and treat the population accordingly, and all of a sudden everyone IS out to get them.

Treat everyone with respect, especially your enemies. If you caracature your enemies you won't understand them, and you'll make grave mistakes. Coincidentally the US is famous for doing just this in most wars since the 1950's.

If you want to see how factions within the US (ie. the neocons) manufacture enemies intentionally watch "The Power of Nightmares" by the BBC : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4_vkIsKOU4 [youtube.com] . It's a very solid work, with many neocon powerbrokers and politicians expousing their philosophies, ex pentagon intelligence people talking about their frustrations, islamists and ex islamists etc... It also goes into how ALL (not just most) of these "terrorist" busts up til the point the documentary aired were paranoid delusions of jumpy police and spooks... but of course this isn't newsworthy so noone hears about it.

Re:Correct (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#40807161)

I note they still haven't arrested BushCo for sending what, a billion dollars to the Taliban to "halt" opium production.

Re:Correct (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#40807355)

Always the "good" progressive leftist, eh drinkypoo? Remember: It has been proven many times over that you should be careful what you ask for, you might get it [youtube.com] .

Re:Correct (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#40807379)

Always the "good" progressive leftist, eh drinkypoo?

Provably better than the hateful FUD you're spreading as an attempt at suppression of views with which you do not agree, you tiny-hearted little person.

Re:Correct (1)

silanea (1241518) | about 2 years ago | (#40810103)

Here in Germany every single "terrorist" put on trial since the German Autumn has been revealed to have had contact to at least one state agency, from state and federal police to the Verfassungsschutz (part of the intelligence conglomerate) to our two secret services, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (foreign intelligence) and Militärischer Abschirmdienst (domestic intelligence), including being funded, trained, "led". At the same time this happened [wikipedia.org] right under the noses of all the aforementioned agencies. They cannot protect the public from three lowlives. But they can combat terrorism. Yeah, right.

In all seriousness: On the list of threats to my life, freedom and livelihood terrorism does not even make the top twenty.

Re:Correct (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#40810737)

Here in Germany every single "terrorist" put on trial since the German Autumn has been revealed to have had contact to at least one state agency, from state and federal police to the Verfassungsschutz (part of the intelligence conglomerate) to our two secret services, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (foreign intelligence) and Militärischer Abschirmdienst (domestic intelligence), including being funded, trained, "led".

That is really quite a fantastic claim given the following item, and just a small sample of arrests below. I would think you must have some substantial proof of this? And yes, terrorism is probably not the most likely thing to kill you, but it can in fact be a serious problem for a country if not held in check. You might have a very different opinion if Islamists in Germany achieve a similar attack rate there that they do in Iraq [aswataliraq.info] or Pakistan. The total killed by the National Socialist Underground isn't even a busy morning's work for Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Homegrown Terror Takes on New Dimensions [spiegel.de]

Surge in Volunteers

Never before have as many volunteers from Germany attended terrorist training camps as in the last two years. According to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany's domestic intelligence agency, 138 people from Germany planned to travel to a training camp in 2009 alone. Since then, five volunteers leave the country on average each month to go to one of the camps in Pakistan. In the last decade, at least 220 people from Germany have completed terrorist training, with about half returning to Germany.

The Radical Islamist Roots of the Frankfurt Attack [spiegel.de] - 03/03/2011
Two Terror Suspects Arrested in Berlin [spiegel.de] - 09/08/2011
From the Rhine River to the Jihad [spiegel.de] - 09/29/2008
German Police Arrest 3 in Terrorist Plot [nytimes.com] - 09/06/2007

Re:Correct (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#40806753)

Could I opt-out of the terrorism stuff? I mean, mutually. You don't protect me from terrorists and I promise I won't hold you liable if I get blown up? Any chance?

Somehow I bet a damn lot of people would jump on that opt-out instantly.

Re:stupid people (4, Informative)

grcumb (781340) | about 2 years ago | (#40805105)

if they did this to prove a point, they could have just posted a sample of the data, but no, they reveal everyones data and show they have as little respect for people as the companies that they target.

An update in the Gizmodo article [gizmodo.com.au] states that they did not reveal everyone's data - it was a partial dump containing only business and government account records. So, I think they're taking your advice. Ready to support them now? 8^)

Re:stupid people (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#40806621)

An update in the Gizmodo article [gizmodo.com.au] states that they did not reveal everyone's data - it was a partial dump containing only business and government account records. So, I think they're taking your advice. Ready to support them now? 8^)

So, if bank robbers only rob the banks with other people's money, do you support them? If vandals only trash someone else's school, do you support them? If arsonists only burn down other people's homes, do you support them? If hackers (like Anonymous [dailytech.com] ) only steal other people's credit cards, do you support them? What a silly notion.

Re:stupid people (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#40806759)

If bank robbers rob only shady investment banks that caused the current recession and causes them to fold, then yes, I support them.
If vandals only trash places of people who have shown they don't give a shit about society, then yes, I support them.
If arsonists only burn down the homes of people who have shown they caused grief to others for no good reason then yes, I support them.

If hackers only publish the data of the people who made the data retention mandatory in the first place, then yes, I support them!

40GB? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40804963)

We're likely to see more data trickle out over the coming days, considering that the group has promised 40GB worth of leaks.

I have a 25GB monthly quota, you insensitive clods!

Re:40GB? (3, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | about 2 years ago | (#40805143)

We're likely to see more data trickle out over the coming days, considering that the group has promised 40GB worth of leaks.

I have a 25GB monthly quota, you insensitive clods!

Don't worry. If it was a raw database extract totally 40GB I bet a lot of it is metadata and the content itself is probably highly compressible. I bet someone can put it in a more useful form and compress it and you'll be able to slide under your quota.

Failing that, I'm sure the slashdot editors could release a summary. They are excellent at making summaries of things - most of the time they don't even need the original data to do so!

Information doesn't want to be free (2)

HeadlessNotAHorseman (823040) | about 2 years ago | (#40805187)

Does it count as a release if it is uploaded to Letitbit.net, which proceeds to try and trick me into downloading an .exe file, then presents me with about 20 unreadable captchas in a row, then fails because it uses javascript on some IP address which got blocked by noscript, then after making an exception for that IP address it says I have reached my free limit of one download per day?

GREAT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40805781)

The TRUTH shall set us free.

Re:GREAT! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#40806761)

If the truth can be told so as to be understood it will be believed.

I just fear that the "understood" part is the hard one to accomplish.

c08 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40806083)

OF AMERICA) 1s the

Re:c08 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40806529)

What is the meaning of this fabulous sentence of a mystery language?

Corps slow to learn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40806949)

Oh dear, given the amount of time that has passed since Wikileaks first got started, looks like corporates are just not very good at preventing this sort of mass leak/breach! Hopefully AAPT will fire their security team, Telstra will be next no doubt! Theres a guide to preventing mass leaks over at the 360 blog, maybe AAPT missed it :-)

http://360is.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/wikileaks-lessons-for-uk-information.html

It's about architecting Locard's exchange (1)

forensic.tech (1400779) | about 2 years ago | (#40820575)

I think the point that a lot of people/hactivists miss when they focus on privacy and get their knickers in a twist is that data retention regulations aren't primarily intended as surveillance enabling mechanisms, they are intended as evidence preservers so that once a law enforcement officer has enough evidence to go before a judge and get a warrant there will be something there to seize. From a forensic perspective, they mandate the architecting of digital exchange into systems they target. In the physical world this isn't necessary, we leave fingerprints everywhere we go, we pick up carpet fibers on our shoes, and we leave trace evidence behind. When it comes to digital systems such as those run by ISPs, unless there is software and hardware explicitly designed and configured to log, retain user info, etc, it isn't going to happen; transfer evidence is not going to exist. A lot of this type of legislation has been enacted because countries, even non-European ones, are signatories of the European convention on cybercrime, and the convention directs countries to have this type of capacity in place. The International Telecommunications Union, part of the UN, is also pushing countries to enact similar legislation. The trick is to make sure that the legislation is enacted in a way that doesn't infringe on privacy or other rights. If you read the convention, it specifically mandates that privacy and human rights be respected. There is also a retention time and a secure deletion directive, at least insofar as the European convention is concerned (directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament). Having said that, user activity data certainly needs to be better protected. And to all those who will probably jump on me and point out that the legislation and the convention also requires ISPs to have surveillance capability, that surveillance can only to be started with the proper judicial authorization, otherwise it is a criminal offence. It's just like taping a phone conversation. In most countries we also have enough case law and constitutional protection to mitigate abuse (e.g. 4th amendment in the US, or Charter s.8 in Canada.)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...