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!

Former Anonymous Spokesperson Indicted

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the be-careful-what-links-you-copy dept.

Crime 114

SternisheFan sends this quote from Ars: "On Friday, a federal grand jury in Dallas indicted Barrett Brown, a former self-proclaimed Anonymous spokesperson, for trafficking 'stolen authentication features,' as well as 'access device fraud' and 'aggravated identity theft.' Brown has been detained since he was arrested in September for allegedly threatening a federal agent. 10 counts of the 12-count indictment concern the aggravated identity theft charge (the indictment references 10 people from whom Brown is alleged to have stolen information), but the most interesting charge is probably the first; a single count saying Brown, 'did knowingly traffic in more than five authentication features knowing that such features were stolen and produced without lawful authority.' But rather than a physical back-alley hand-off, this alleged trafficking happened online when Barrett transferred a hyperlink, 'from the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel called "#Anonops" to an IRC channel under Brown's control, called "#ProjectPM."' That hyperlink happened to include over 5,000 credit card numbers, associating Ids, and Card Verification Values (CVVs) from the Stratfor Global Intelligence database."

cancel ×

114 comments

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

ED entry (4, Interesting)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232301)

And now you know! [encyclopediadramatica.se]

Re:ED entry (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232449)

They caught him with spam?

Nice post BTW

Re:ED entry (1)

tqk (413719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234309)

Erectile dysfunction?

Picking a fight (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232303)

India-nigger picking a fight?

Former? (4, Informative)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232305)

Well I guess he's not anonymous anymore now they caught him.

He never was an Anon. He was a self promoter. (4, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232439)

He was promoting himself. He did not understand what he was doing. He was a typical kid from the suburbs getting himself involved with cartels, pissing off the FBI, and challenging the US military establishment. He is lucky to be arrested and be alive, and yes he's going to be spending many years in prison as apparently he did not agree to become an informant.

Re:He never was an Anon. He was a self promoter. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233733)

still, posting the link to the data from a practically public forum to another.. what the fuck kind of crime is that?

I think I saw links to the data on slashdot. in any case at the point he was linking to them they were for all intents and purposes already public.

Re:He never was an Anon. He was a self promoter. (2)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234219)

still, posting the link to the data from a practically public forum to another.. what the fuck kind of crime is that?

I think I saw links to the data on slashdot. in any case at the point he was linking to them they were for all intents and purposes already public.

When they want to get someone they'll fish for something illegal until they find something. There are so many laws on the books that it's a certainty we are all criminals so if they want to get you they can.

Re:He never was an Anon. He was a self promoter. (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235423)

Exactly. Everyone in the US is a criminal. If they want you there is a law somewhere they can use to burn you.

Re:He never was an Anon. He was a self promoter. (2)

CodeBuster (516420) | about a year and a half ago | (#42239689)

Everyone in the US is a criminal. If they want you there is a law somewhere they can use to burn you.

Yes. However, those who challenge the authorities should not be surprised by the response. It's one thing to be targeted, but it's quite another to paint the target on your own back.

Re:He never was an Anon. He was a self promoter. (2)

CodeBuster (516420) | about a year and a half ago | (#42239677)

When they want to get someone they'll fish for something illegal until they find something.

Hence the need for powerful friends who can be called upon for favors. If you cannot afford such friends then it's best to remain hidden and out of site amongst the great unwashed masses. Remember, it's the tall grass that gets cut first by the scythe.

Re:Former? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232905)

He never, ever was anonymous in the first place. He was, and is, an attention whore. Once he's locked up in prison he'll be a real whore.

Re:Former? (1)

Chewbacon (797801) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234205)

Hope they all go down. These guys play Robin Hood, but they've victimized the "poor" too many times with their antics. They're a self serving group just like those they claim to be against.

Re:Former? (1)

ultranova (717540) | about a year and a half ago | (#42240961)

Hope they all go down. These guys play Robin Hood, but they've victimized the "poor" too many times with their antics.

But once they're down, the Sheriff of Nottingham can focus all his attention on you.

And besides, haven't you got the memo? Robin Hood was a socialist who took from the job creators and distributed to the looters. We should be rooting for Prince John, the brave entrepreneur who stood up against the governmental authority of King Richards. Indeed, John and the Sheriff should go live off of a perpetual motion engine in seclusion - all those darn looters will beg them to return in no time, but they'll just shrug and let em' die, being the true heroes they are.

link = trafficking? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232329)

So now posting a URL can be trafficking in whatever it links to even if you're not serving it?

This is nuts, think of the implications;

Post a link to pirate bay and you've trafficked copyrighted material!?

Re:link = trafficking? (1, Insightful)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232411)

Real world analogy would be, "See that car round the corner? I think it's stolen" = Trafficking in stolen vehicles / Grand theft auto.

Re:link = trafficking? (4, Insightful)

anyaristow (1448609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232431)

No, real world analogy would be, "See that car around the corner? It's unlocked and you don't need a key to start it. You're welcome." = Trafficking in stolen vehicles

No, that wouldn't be analogous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232463)

But you aren't really here for reality, are you.

Re:No, that wouldn't be analogous (1, Flamebait)

anyaristow (1448609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232521)

Better hurry up and add this brilliant rebuttal to the two other posts essentially just like mine.

Re:link = trafficking? (1)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232619)

Real-world analogy: "You can buy drugs in Washington Heights" = trafficking in drugs.

This, of course, is the same logic employed by Big Media when pursuing thiev-- sorry, copyright infringers.

Re:link = trafficking? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232753)

real world analogy: "you can buy drugs in washington heights, here let me take you to my buddies house where you can get some"

also note the date and the date of the compromise and of course the other charges in the indictment that at least implies they're saying he's involved in the initial hack and was responsible for distributing the information; i bet the irc logs in question go like "lol heres some credit card numbers go use them"

Re:link = trafficking? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232943)

Except, that, if you're using the bittorrent protocol to "download", you're sending data out about it too, thus, trafficing.

I'm also sure the media doesn't know the full gambit of info - for all we know, they tracked the link and found others in his ProjectPM channel to have downloaded the information. Thus, the trafficing charge.

Re:link = trafficking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42237461)

Gamut, not gambit, in this instance.

Re:link = trafficking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232437)

hmmm...I think you need to add "Here's the keys for it, go steal it"

Re:link = trafficking? (1)

Shimbo (100005) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232465)

I think, "the keys are just on the floor there but I have no idea how they got there", would be closest.

Re:link = trafficking? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233789)

I think in this case his bragging that he was associated with a notorious cracker ring will come into the evidence somewhere.

Re:link = trafficking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232429)

Short answer yes

Re:link = trafficking? (2)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232451)

So now posting a URL can be trafficking in whatever it links to even if you're not serving it?

This is nuts, think of the implications;

Post a link to pirate bay and you've trafficked copyrighted material!?

That is a legit argument. Legally that is a concern but honestly at this point considering the stakes of the situation they weren't going to fight fair. If you piss off or threaten the feds they'll find something. Just ask Jim Bell.

Re:link = trafficking? (2)

grumpy_old_grandpa (2634187) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232475)

It is nuts, but not new. And since you mentioned PB, which is an example of exactly the same; metadata but no content. Unfortunately, that did not shield them from attack, eventually conviction, and lately censorship.

Judges, politicians, and governments everywhere are starting to catch up on the technology. Unsurprisingly, they twist it in their favour, and use it to survival, censor, and control.

It is time to build a new network: Decentralized, anonymous, encrypted, and free.

Re:link = trafficking? (0)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232853)

The other implication is: every link you post is potentially landing you in jail if for whatever reason it is altered to point to illegal content.

You link a lolcat pic, the lolcat site goes belly up, the domain gets sold and the page becomes mere ad space, one of the ad gets hacked or the ads display adult content. YOU are now linking to illegal stuff or inappropriate stuff (the lolcat pic was in a site for students or teens and now it displays boobs).

Improbable you say? SURE. But how many links you will post in your life?

The long term implications is no linking for fear of problems. The www becomes the oligopoly of big sites, high barrier to entry, just like tv network.

But it was probably meant to be this way since the potential of the internet for oppressing or liberating people became known to the status-quo powerful people.

Re:link = trafficking? (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233779)

Aided others in doing so and probably conspired to do so, at least.

But here's the rub. Let's say you post a link to something that looks like a interesting information piece on Slashdot.
Unbeknownst (= really stupid word, by the way! ) to you, that site has a link on it to a file containing thousands of stolen credit card numbers, bank account numbers and unencrypted passwords. Now you are a suspect in an "identity theft" case. (We used to call this kind of thing bank fraud, but now it's identity theft.). Also, so is Slashdot. So is everybody who modded you up. So are the moderators and the hosting service.

And there are even more outlandish (but very possible) scenarios. You post a similar link to an informative piece. But the actual article you refer to is on some obscure site hosted by god knows whom. And the owner of that site decides to replace the article you referred to with bunch of links to identity-theft materials. By the time the FBI sees a complaint about this, they can't tell that you weren't referring everybody on slashdot, prolific identity thieves that they must be, to this hijacked material. It looks even more damning. Everybody's going to prison unless you can persuade the FBI that that shit wasn't there when you posted the link and you had no knowledge that the owner or more probably the hacker who took down his site was in the stolen-credit-card-number racket.

YEAAAAH !! TAKEDOWN !! GOOD GUYS ALWAYS WIN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232339)

Let him rot in anonymously for 10 to 20 YEARS !! Eat shit and die, motherfucker !!

What'd he do, again ??

The Internet cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232417)

The Internet cancer [kimmoa.se] .

If the feds want you they can get you. Learn that. (5, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232433)

Let this be a lesson to any cyber pranksters or not so serious e-revolutionaries. These sorts of games are very dangerous and only lead to two possible outcomes, getting yourself killed or getting yourself locked away in prison.

The same thing happened in the 60s-70s when the Black Panthers, Crips, Gangster Disciples and many urban gangs wanted to fight for social justice through unity. The problem with these gangs is they did not understand that the FBI wasn't going to go along with that. FBI has had a counter intelligence program since the 1940s founded after the business plot coup attempt against FDR. Originally COINTELPRO was designed to protect the USA from fascists but when World War 2 ended World War 3 began (the Cold War) and it reached it's peak in the 60s-70s.

The problem with these e-revolutionaries is they don't study history. They don't understand that many of them are being exploited by foreign intelligence agencies, basically being tooled, and in many cases are nothing more than useful idiots. Just as the USA launched a war on drugs to fight and win the 60s Civil War, and now due to the crackdown on gangs you have millions of prisoners who are directly connected or the descendants of Black Panthers and or other groups. No one was paying any attention or fighting for these political prisoners and it's not over.

The new front is the internet. The government has made Julian Assange enemy of the state. Anyone who isn't prepared to go to prison or get killed should immediately distance themselves from this situation because the stakes are too high. You may disagree with your government, you may agree with the values of Julian Assange, but it does not mean it is going to be wise for you or your family to get involved in the situation. Cyberwarfare is not fun, it's not fair, there are no human rights, you can be entrapped, framed, set up for crimes you didn't do, or tricked into doing things you didn't know were crimes. You'll never know who among your friends are informants, you'll never see all the angles or know who is trying to get you killed or get you arrested.

The life of a revolutionary is very similar to the life of a gangster. It's often a shortened life. This is something many of the kids involved do not understand because they did not grow up around gangs and had somewhat sheltered childhoods. If they understood the dangers they wouldn't get involved. Barrett Brown is in over his head, he did not understand the dangers of which he got himself involved in. He also underestimated the lengths that governments will go to take someone out. The governments who want to take people like him out do not have any limits, they have way more technology than he can possibly hope to deal with, way more resources than he could possibly fathom, and a ruthlessness he cannot hope to understand.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232539)

>there are no human rights, you can be entrapped, framed, set up for crimes you didn't do, or tricked into doing things you didn't know were crimes.

Is there any difference for people not involved in warfare in USA?

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (2)

lightknight (213164) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233035)

So far as our current government seems to be concerned, everyone is a potential enemy.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233929)

>there are no human rights, you can be entrapped, framed, set up for crimes you didn't do, or tricked into doing things you didn't know were crimes.

Is there any difference for people not involved in warfare in USA?

You are a lot less likely to end up in prison or dead if you don't go to war with the U.S. government or other governments.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235459)

If you aren't causing a problem you're probably going to be ignored. Stand out and you'll go down hard.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232585)

Someone has to do it.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235487)

has to do what? transfer links to credit card numbers?

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232625)

...and if you feel like you need to really play it safe, go on the internet and tell people to give up in the face of entrenched forces because standing up for yourself is dangerous. Good work, citizen.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232643)

Or, if you see some naive geeks, thinking they are brilliant because they've read a lot of books and can nitpick the meanings of words, admiring foolish people, you might warn them they coexist in the real world, even if from their bedroom they see it through a screen shaped a lot like a television.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232775)

There's a difference between telling people not to get in over their heads and telling them to "distance themselves from this situation". That's like telling people not to openly disagree with the ruling party because opposition might get you in trouble. This isn't the fucking Soviet Union.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233037)

Yeah, this isn't the fucking Soviet Union! ... yet.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42235333)

That depends on what you disagree with. Some subjects you can't publicly argue against. I'm sure not going to mention these subjects. If you dare to do so as those subjects are technically legal the government will make false arrests if they can't otherwise force you from the state using threats.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233955)

There's a difference between telling people not to get in over their heads and telling them to "distance themselves from this situation". That's like telling people not to openly disagree with the ruling party because opposition might get you in trouble. This isn't the fucking Soviet Union.

If you openly disagree AND you start acting in ways which reflect that then expect to be locked up. That is what happens usually.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234125)

So it is the Soviet Fucking Union after all. Thanks for the heads up.

fuck you im right here (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233119)

come get me and see what happens i dare you....

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

tonymercmobily (658708) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232707)

Hi,

My mod point just expired... but this comment is just beyond spot-on. Mod up!
This is also one of the saddest comment I've read on Slashdot.

Merc.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232759)

But 4chan promised them they will al be anonymous and nobody can find them!

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232783)

The same thing happened in the 60s-70s when the Black Panthers, Crips, Gangster Disciples and many urban gangs wanted to fight for social justice through unity. The problem with these gangs is they did not understand that the FBI wasn't going to go along with that. FBI has had a counter intelligence program since the 1940s founded after the business plot coup attempt against FDR. Originally COINTELPRO was designed to protect the USA from fascists but when World War 2 ended World War 3 began (the Cold War) and it reached it's peak in the 60s-70s.

Wait, what? The crips and gangster disciples were established to fight for social justice? I think its you that needs to go read a history book. If an idiot commits a crime and he gets arrested and indicted, thats not cointelpro, thats called the legal system.

They don't understand that many of them are being exploited by foreign intelligence agencies, basically being tooled, and in many cases are nothing more than useful idiots.

While this is partially true, its amusing that you neglect that anonymous is exactly what the USA needed in terms of cyberwarfare-- look at anonymous china, they relentlessly hacked .gov.cn sites, got real data-- not a collection of emails no one cares about, nothing but defense contractors and no real leaks came from it. They arrest a few and shrug at china and go 'i dunno our legal system isnt perfect' and smile.

I could go into some personal experiences with the unacknowledged humint sides of anon, but whatever. You just wanted to blather on about stuff you dont know anything about, not actually be informed.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (2)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233811)

Wait, what? The crips and gangster disciples were established to fight for social justice? I think its you that needs to go read a history book.

If you know the history of these gangs and the founding members you would understand why they started these gangs. They were started as a means of obtaining social justice for disenfranchised minority groups and youth during the civil rights era where minorities could not trust the police because there were few if any minority police, where the government was openly racist, where the KKK was still around. The fact that you don't know anything about Urban history proves my point that you're one of the people I'm talking about.

If an idiot commits a crime and he gets arrested and indicted, thats not cointelpro, thats called the legal system.

COINTELPRO works through and beyond the legal system. The FBI handles all that.

While this is partially true, its amusing that you neglect that anonymous is exactly what the USA needed in terms of cyberwarfare-- look at anonymous china, they relentlessly hacked .gov.cn sites, got real data-- not a collection of emails no one cares about, nothing but defense contractors and no real leaks came from it.

Where are your facts? Provide a URL to the real data you're talking about.

They arrest a few and shrug at china and go 'i dunno our legal system isnt perfect' and smile.

I could go into some personal experiences with the unacknowledged humint sides of anon, but whatever. You just wanted to blather on about stuff you dont know anything about, not actually be informed.

HUMINT side of Anon? Anon in China has nothing to do with Anon in the USA. If you're saying some Anon are patriotic then that is fine and dandy but some Anon act like domestic terrorists and are unpatriotic and you have to accept that truth as well. The Julian Assange faction of Anon is misguided. If you think you're more informed than me then say what you have to say.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233901)

"Provide a URL to the real data you're talking about." - that's called entrapment. Didn't you know providing links is a heinous crime?

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234229)

"Provide a URL to the real data you're talking about." - that's called entrapment. Didn't you know providing links is a heinous crime?

Since when?

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

ultranova (717540) | about a year and a half ago | (#42241005)

If you're saying some Anon are patriotic then that is fine and dandy but some Anon act like domestic terrorists and are unpatriotic and you have to accept that truth as well. The Julian Assange faction of Anon is misguided.

If publishing the truth makes you "unpatriotic", then frankly, your country is unworthy of patriotism.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42241327)

If you're saying some Anon are patriotic then that is fine and dandy but some Anon act like domestic terrorists and are unpatriotic and you have to accept that truth as well. The Julian Assange faction of Anon is misguided.

If publishing the truth makes you "unpatriotic", then frankly, your country is unworthy of patriotism.

Some information should not be widely distributed. Some information should not be leaked or published as it can put lives in danger, destroy peoples reputation or lives, or destroy society itself. It is not patriotic to leak classified information.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232863)

Actually many of them know history and are just hoping they aren't the ones singled out.

But comparing them to basic thugs when they are the ones attempting to stand up to the thugs shows us just how biased you really are.

Well, some of them are. Anonymous isn't one cohesive group, hell, it isn't even a real group by any stretch of the imagination. It is more like a mob with different sects within it.Many of them are attempting to do what good they can with the options they have, these are the ones the government targets to take them out of the way so they can keep their bad deeds secret. Then we have the group that is just wanting to see the world burn, these are the ones the government tries to portray them as while at the same time doing next to nothing to target these unless they hit something sensitive and cause a decent amount of damage.

So we have the "V for Vendetta" sect which the government attacks, then we have the Heath Ledger in Batman which they just ignore except as something to point at to portray the "V for Vendetta" sect as in an attempt to discredit them.

I'm selecting your comment out to highlight (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233549)

Actually many of them know history and are just hoping they aren't the ones singled out.

But comparing them to basic thugs when they are the ones attempting to stand up to the thugs shows us just how biased you really are .

I did not call the Black Panthers, Gangster Disciples, Crips etc "basic thugs". You did. You don't know the history of these groups. You haven't done your research into these groups to understand why they exist. You assume they are basic thugs and the next group of people like you will look at Anon's as basic thugs or e-thugs in the exact same way you look at the forerunners of Anons. To put it simply the authorities view them all as domestic terrorist groups, gangs, or thugs, but if you're siding with Anon then you are too dumb to realize that everyone who is a victim of COINTELPRO is a political prisoner.

And if you're not siding with Anon then they are either thugs if you're a cop, or they are immature children in over their heads. No matter how you look at it, you gotta do your research.

Well, some of them are. Anonymous isn't one cohesive group, hell, it isn't even a real group by any stretch of the imagination.

It's technically an umbrella organization.

It is more like a mob with different sects within it.

Right, just like the commission or the Italian Mafia. And that is why the FBI is treating them like they treat other organized crime groups. It might be a group of families or a mob or whatever but to the feds they are domestic terrorists and you know this.

Many of them are attempting to do what good they can with the options they have,

They need to re-evaluate their options and re-evaluate what "good" is. They are brainwashed by people like Julian Assange. Most of them are script kiddies who don't have the technical or engineering knowledge to understand what is wrong with Julian Assange's overall vision. They don't understand the technology behind Tor, or understand cryptography, or understand the basis of onion routing and how it can be defeated, or the risks of digital currencies, but they blindly follow the leader without actually having studied or learned about the necessary subjects.

these are the ones the government targets to take them out of the way so they can keep their bad deeds secret. Then we have the group that is just wanting to see the world burn, these are the ones the government tries to portray them as while at the same time doing next to nothing to target these unless they hit something sensitive and cause a decent amount of damage.

What "bad deed secrets" has the U.S. government committed? You're talking about factions of the U.S. military? Be specific about it because the Cable Gate leak did not make the U.S. State Dept look bad, it actually seems like they were trying to do their jobs honorably.

So we have the "V for Vendetta" sect which the government attacks, then we have the Heath Ledger in Batman which they just ignore except as something to point at to portray the "V for Vendetta" sect as in an attempt to discredit them.

On this you have done your research. You might want to elaborate more on this but you're correct that Anon are vigilantes who sometimes come in useful when they aid the U.S. military or CIA in it's interests. On the other hand those same vigilantes make themselves part of the problem when they aid political interests or fight for moral causes which they do not understand. They are essentially used as tools for various governments and aren't aware of whether their actions are right or wrong or what the outcome ultimately is. They simply are used as puppet vigilantes for good or for evil.

You aren't entirely incorrect with what you say but you are incorrect in that you don't understand the context.

Re:I'm selecting your comment out to highlight (1)

ultranova (717540) | about a year and a half ago | (#42241077)

Most of them are script kiddies who don't have the technical or engineering knowledge to understand what is wrong with Julian Assange's overall vision.

So why don't you educate us? What is wrong with Julian Assange's vision, which, as far as I can tell, is letting people know what their government is doing in their name? Well?

Re:I'm selecting your comment out to highlight (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42241337)

Most of them are script kiddies who don't have the technical or engineering knowledge to understand what is wrong with Julian Assange's overall vision.

So why don't you educate us? What is wrong with Julian Assange's vision, which, as far as I can tell, is letting people know what their government is doing in their name? Well?

Go on Google or Youtube and search for "Assassination Politics" by Jim Bell. If you think these sorts of markets make the world more safe then let's have a legit discussion on the philosophical implications.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232903)

You are weak, and deserve living in your corrupt, morally bankrupt shithole of a country.

Enjoy taking it up the ass.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

Eskarel (565631) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232957)

The problem with Anonymous (and many of the ones you mentioned) is that they aren't freedom fighters so much as criminals. Taking down Mastercard and Visa when they refused payments to Wikileaks, freedom fighters, nicking innocent peoples credit cards and using them without consent, criminals. They have the usual attitude that anyone who isn't a member of their little group must be some form of sheeple and it's ok to damage or steal from the sheeple for any reason whatsoever. Problem is, the thing that keeps you from getting destroyed by the powers that be, that would be the support of the sheeple. Anonymous are a bunch of dickheads who incidentally do the right thing sometimes, just like lulzsec and a dozen other similar groups. Just because they occasionally aim their sights at "the bad guys" doesn't make them "the good guys". Tracking down identity thieves and credit card thieves is what the FBI is for, and this guy can rot for all I care.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233045)

Ehhh ... you can rot for all I care.

I hope you die of cancer, you fucking conservative pig fucker!

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (3, Insightful)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233283)

A way to rephrase what you wrote in the proper jargon is:

Anonymous aren't revolutionary. They're adventurists. [marxists.org]

Same as it ever was when middle class kids decide to take on 'The Man.'

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233903)

The problem with Anonymous (and many of the ones you mentioned) is that they aren't freedom fighters so much as criminals. Taking down Mastercard and Visa when they refused payments to Wikileaks, freedom fighters, nicking innocent peoples credit cards and using them without consent, criminals. They have the usual attitude that anyone who isn't a member of their little group must be some form of sheeple and it's ok to damage or steal from the sheeple for any reason whatsoever. Problem is, the thing that keeps you from getting destroyed by the powers that be, that would be the support of the sheeple. Anonymous are a bunch of dickheads who incidentally do the right thing sometimes, just like lulzsec and a dozen other similar groups. Just because they occasionally aim their sights at "the bad guys" doesn't make them "the good guys". Tracking down identity thieves and credit card thieves is what the FBI is for, and this guy can rot for all I care.

The problem is many of them are uninformed, misinformed, or ill advised. My parent comment was to highlight the fact that many Anons are just teenage script kiddies, followers, in over their head, who don't really know whether their actions are right or wrong but who are following their gut instincts or feelings. I'm not claiming ever Anon is like this but the way they go about certain things or the ideas behind certain ops appear to be motivated entirely by gut reactions, feelings, without any real consideration of the long term outcomes.

The Cablegate leak was wrong. That leak could not have helped the USA and only could have benefit the terrorists if anything. Anon has not exposed genocide, or torture, or saved the world. Anon by it's current design is already obsolete for it's intended purposes. Any young person who joins into it because it's cool or because they agree with the ideology has to understand what they are getting themselves into and my commentary was meant as a warning to those who don't understand.

If you know you could lose your life or your freedom by your involvement but you are so passionate that you're willing to risk it all then go ahead. Just don't think it's just "activism" or "protesting", it's warfare and vigilantism and these sorts of groups if you study groups like them or if you study the lives of these sorts of individuals they usually end up in prison or dead because being a revolutionary is the worlds most dangerous profession.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

Eskarel (565631) | about a year and a half ago | (#42240033)

The man in TFA is 30, he's not a kid and he knows or at least should have known what he was doing. In addition to his acts of protest he appears to have engaged in acts which are purely criminal. I'm as sick as anyone of this attitude that no one is willing to pay for doing the right thing and cries afterwards, but this isn't that case. These idiots(and seemingly this idiot in particular) stole peoples credit cards and identities and then shared them with the world, they didn't do this because it was a strike for freedom, because it isn't, it's just a bunch of really dumb as smart people who think that because other people aren't as smart as they are that they deserve what they get.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233917)

So, what you're saying is that you work for the feds, that Black Panthers and Crips are the same kind of groups, USA had a civil war in the sixties(wait, was Vietnam a state in USA) and that the feds have magic cyberwarfare tech and shot Martin Luther King and Bloods are pretty much like IRA and not a drug dealing organization?

Come on, it doesn't take that much to get involved in saying that certain politics are bullshit, but that's all it really needs. they're not going to come to your house and shoot you in your sleep. it's just some kids spreading cc numbers and hacking docs, it's the kind of shit half the kids online used to do(fake cc's got you on xxx sites back in the day). it's just that he got himself on the news that was his problem - and not enough on the news at the same time(give clintons cc number to one guy and you're fucked - give it to all the people watching fox news and no problem).

Foreign intelligence agencies having a stake in the petty defacing.. sure, they'll follow what's happening - some of them, very very few of them. but it isn't something they'll deposit polonium over - fucking up their deals to sell weapons illegally for extra retirement cash they might whack you over, but only if it kept things quiet. Streisand effect and all.

Dealing dope at a random street corner is 1000x more dangerous than any of the shit he did anyways - hell, having a legit kiosk in Russia is more dangerous. Comparing it to action like offshoots from Black Panthers did("Hey let's buy some guns and hunt us some cops!") or the turf warfare Crips engage in is stupid - encouraging thinking that it's "omg cyberwarfare dangerouss!!!" is just the kind of shit that makes DA's and the feds spend time and punishments on this shit which doesn't really matter while they could be depositing real murderers for hire. Appropriate penalty would be a slap on the wrists. By comparing the actions to live fast die young gangster life you're really romanticizing the whole movement and nerd circles. Sure, trading warez and some docs is illegal, but would it be in any way right to say that having done that made you original gangsta? Hell no and there's certainly no need to try to impress people that it's so, that little johnny is ruffing feathers with the KGB and CIA when he's just trying to figure out a way over the firewall to get some porno.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42236021)

So, what you're saying is that you work for the feds,

No, I just do my research and have a graduate level education. I study history and computer science. I know how government works and how computers work. I am not working for the feds just because I'm not with Julian Assange. I don't agree with Julian Assange philosophically.

that Black Panthers and Crips are the same kind of groups, USA had a civil war in the sixties(wait, was Vietnam a state in USA) and that the feds have magic cyberwarfare tech

Do you work for foreign intelligence? Why do you want to deny that COINTELPRO exists? When the feds spend 500-600 billion every year on military spending you don't think any of that will be used for Cyberwarfare or Cybersecurity? You don't see how the War on Drugs resulted in millions of gang members, and children of revolutionaries being locked up in prison? Are you even from the United States and if you are do you happen to know anyone who is or was involved in anything? I suggest you do a bit of investigative journalism and go ask people who actually are involved what happened or is happening. Don't take my word on things, go to your local prison and ask about how things work.

and shot Martin Luther King and Bloods are pretty much like IRA and not a drug dealing organization?

I never said anything about MLK or the bloods. The FBI believed MLK was a communist or communist sympathizer. The FBI believed that those gangs are like the IRA because the FBI treated them no different. It's specific gangs I'm talking about here not just random neighborhood bloods. The Crips in the 70s aren't the same as the Crips in the 80s because the founder of the Crips Raymond Washington actually was a revolutionary who formed the Crips not to be a drug gang but to be a social justice gang. It became a drug gang after Raymond Washington and some of the other more civilized leadership were killed and replaced by thugs who had no purpose beyond make money. The FBI COINTELPRO does not and did not see the "basic thug" as a threat. Raymond Washington was not a "basic thug". The Gangster Disciples under Larry Hoover were a revolutionary outfit. Larry Hoover is not a "basic thug". The fact that you don't even know who Raymond Washington or Larry Hoover is, that proves to me you have no business discussing revolution, or talking about this subject. Anyone who seriously thinks about these topics will know these names along with Charles Luciano, Meyer Lansky,Huey P Newton, Donald DeFreeze, Charles Manson (although mainstream people know a bit about him and his family), and others.

These are the sort of people who took on the government in the 50s, 60s, 70s. There are another generation of people who took on the government in the 80s and 90s. For the most part the couch potato middle class e-revolutionaries haven't heard of any of them because they are mostly black, hispanic or asian and viewed as "thugs" because they are convicted of heinous crimes in prison. But the fact is if you take on the feds you'll ultimately be viewed as a "basic thug" and you'll be locked away for life in prison. Anons and Julian Assange wont stand up for you once you go to prison.

Come on, it doesn't take that much to get involved in saying that certain politics are bullshit, but that's all it really needs. they're not going to come to your house and shoot you in your sleep.

That is because they don't have to. They can arrest you and treat you like a "basic thug" and everyone from the middle class suburbs will turn on you without looking at the facts of your case. All it takes to get you on a crime is an informant or several willing to say you're a drug kingpin or an informant willing to commit a serious crime and say you ordered them to do it and have you prove otherwise.

it's just some kids spreading cc numbers and hacking docs, it's the kind of shit half the kids online used to do(fake cc's got you on xxx sites back in the day).

There is a huge difference between what he was doing and what kids used to do. Barrett Brown was taunting, threatening, and trying to blackmail the feds. He was asking for it quite frankly.

it's just that he got himself on the news that was his problem -

Jim Bell didn't get himself on the news and he's sitting in prison. When you make threats and you're actually capable of following through on those threats they take it seriously. Don't make terrorist threats to the feds, because if you do they might treat you like a terrorist.

and not enough on the news at the same time(give clintons cc number to one guy and you're fucked - give it to all the people watching fox news and no problem).

Foreign intelligence agencies having a stake in the petty defacing.. sure, they'll follow what's happening - some of them, very very few of them. but it isn't something they'll deposit polonium over - fucking up their deals to sell weapons illegally for extra retirement cash they might whack you over, but only if it kept things quiet. Streisand effect and all.

How would you know any of this?

Dealing dope at a random street corner is 1000x more dangerous than any of the shit he did anyways

Have you ever sold dope? What would you know about that? The danger is different but it's similar. The danger on the street corner is the informant or the rival who wants to blow your head off. The danger on the internet is the informant or the foreign intelligence agency.

- hell, having a legit kiosk in Russia is more dangerous. Comparing it to action like offshoots from Black Panthers did("Hey let's buy some guns and hunt us some cops!")

Do your research you racist prick. What do you know about the Black Panthers? Were you even alive then? Were you part of any of that? Involved on any level? Did you know a member or former member? Did you know a guy who knows a guy? If you didn't then do some research.

or the turf warfare Crips engage in is stupid - encouraging thinking that it's "omg cyberwarfare dangerouss!!!" is just the kind of shit that makes DA's and the feds spend time and punishments on this shit which doesn't really matter while they could be depositing real murderers for hire.

Feds eat guys like Barrett Brown up for breakfast and turn his kind into informants. Then those informants are used in stings to catch the murder for hire types. Informants are highly disposable and are thrown away when no longer useful.

I don't know about you but I wouldn't want anyone I care about caught up in this. Apparently you don't know the danger or the seriousness of what goes on so do your research.

Appropriate penalty would be a slap on the wrists. By comparing the actions to live fast die young gangster life you're really romanticizing the whole movement and nerd circles. Sure, trading warez and some docs is illegal, but would it be in any way right to say that having done that made you original gangsta? Hell no and there's certainly no need to try to impress people that it's so, that little johnny is ruffing feathers with the KGB and CIA when he's just trying to figure out a way over the firewall to get some porno.

It's very much the same. When you piss off governments it doesn't matter if you're an cyber gangster or drug gangster or e-terrorist, they all pretty much are treated the same. Law enforcement treats all groups like domestic terrorists, like criminals, like thugs. If you don't want to be treated like a thug, don't get involved in international scandals, or international conflicts, or cyberwarfare. Teenagers don't know that people can get killed, destroyed, or locked up for many years over this. They think they can go around stealing credit card numbers and taunting the feds and nothing will happen? What happens is they will either go to prison for 5 years or more, or they will snitch on all their friends and everyone from their former life and be used as an informer against their own cause.

If I were law enforcement or a fed I would be all for baiting and suckering kids into making dumb mistakes so I can have an unlimited supply of informants and snitches to build an army of informers. I'm not law enforcement or a fed so I did the "ethical" thing which was to warn people who are like my younger self not to get involved in stupid activities. There are better ways to use those skills.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42239699)

I was not aware that you could tighten a tin foil hat enough to cut off blood flow to the brain without the hat tearing. I really would like to meet your haberdasher.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42241293)

I was not aware that you could tighten a tin foil hat enough to cut off blood flow to the brain without the hat tearing. I really would like to meet your haberdasher.

Do not comment out of ignorance on a topic you know little to nothing about and have not studied on any level. Study for a few years and learn how things work and how situations play out. Conduct a few interviews with people, watch at least 100 documentaries, ready at least a dozen books, maybe get a degree or two and then come back.

Promoting ignorance and stupidity among the youth is not good for the youth or for the community which will have to rely on those youth.I can understand you taking this line if you're a cop and you want a continuous stream of ignorant youth to commit stupid offenses so you can have plenty of informants but my post on Slashdot is not likely to stop the tide. It's only meant to reach a specific demographic of youth who are already in the know and who "get it". Apparently you're either not in the know and can't "get it" or you're with another agenda.
 

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42236145)

Anyone who isn't prepared to go to prison or get killed should immediately distance themselves from this situation because the stakes are too high. You may disagree with your government, you may agree with the values of Julian Assange, but it does not mean it is going to be wise for you or your family to get involved in the situation.

I'm a real US American. Give me Liberty or Give me Death. I believe in the Declaration of Independence as much as the Constitution.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

You speak of not knowing history, when history tell us exactly how we should handle such situations. Not buckling in Fear of Terrorists, be they foreign or domestic. Read the list of abuses towards the end of the US Declaration of Independence. Those are things that should not be stood for and a Revolution fought if they can not be resolved. Many of the abuses bear striking similarities to current practices... Like our founding fathers I am cautious to not be reactionary and change long established governments for light and transient causes, however I have learned from history that it is better not to suffer merely because the evils are sufferable. It doesn't have to get worse before it gets better. If the cost of Freedom is my life, then I gladly give it, as any Free man should.

Are your actions as loud as your words? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42237235)

I'm a real US American. Give me Liberty or Give me Death....

  Read the list of abuses towards the end of the US Declaration of Independence.... Those are things that should not be stood for and a Revolution fought if they can not be resolved. Many of the abuses bear striking similarities to current practices... I have learned from history that it is better not to suffer merely because the evils are sufferable. It doesn't have to get worse before it gets better. If the cost of Freedom is my life, then I gladly give it, as any Free man should.

I shall await your eulogy/indictment then.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42238633)

US American. Give me Liberty or Give me Death. I believe in the Declaration of Independence as much as the Constitution.

Respectfully, So do I.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And that is why we have a Democracy, with elections, and the ability to vote. We have a legal traditional method of conducting political warfare to overthrow the old regime and replace it with a new regime. We do this every 4 years through the election process. In 4 years we will have a chance to overthrow the current regime and replace it again with a new regime. Doing it in this traditional manner is a lot less violent than a Civil War and it maintains stability so foreign powers cannot take advantage of a Civil War to burn our Constitution entirely and enslave us as a dulocracy under their rule.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And that is why we have elections every 4 years and why we don't have a President for life or a king. All of the current people in charge can be replaced fair and square, just follow the traditional ritual for doing it.

You speak of not knowing history, when history tell us exactly how we should handle such situations.

If you knew history you'd know we are a Democracy not a dictatorship. If we were a dictatorship then I would agree with you that we need to do something but we aren't that. We aren't serving King Obama. The President is not a King. This is not a Kingdom. We do have a Democracy and the government does change over time. It might not change as fast as we like it and there are still some levers of resistance but I believe if we wait it out the old generations will lose power and eventually young people like us will be in charge. There is no need to do anything other than work hard, make money, pay taxes and vote. If you want to do more for your country there are plenty of things you can do which improve the current government such as helping to rid the government of corruption or helping to reform poorly written laws or just getting the right people elected.

Not buckling in Fear of Terrorists, be they foreign or domestic. Read the list of abuses towards the end of the US Declaration of Independence. Those are things that should not be stood for and a Revolution fought if they can not be resolved. Many of the abuses bear striking similarities to current practices... Like our founding fathers I am cautious to not be reactionary and change long established governments for light and transient causes, however I have learned from history that it is better not to suffer merely because the evils are sufferable. It doesn't have to get worse before it gets better. If the cost of Freedom is my life, then I gladly give it, as any Free man should.

The concept of revolution is what I'm debating. A revolution under our traditional system is an election every 4 years. That is what they had in mind when they wrote that. They had in mind to keep the Democracy in place and use the voting mechanism to have a non-violent overthrow. It's not fair for you to decide you want a revolution and try to put your guy in power without reaching a consensus with the rest of us. That is why we vote every 4 years to reach our consensus on who to kick out and who to put in. That is our revolutionary process. That is our patriotic duty.

I don't believe you have the right to violently overthrow they who have been democratically elected into power. Just because you don't agree with your community and it's constituents it does not mean you have a right to go against their will. Our community has decided that Barack Obama is the President of the United States and whether you like the decision or not that is the consensus. If Obama were to try to claim Presidential powers after losing the election or if he tried to steal a 3rd term then we have to overthrow him because that is a dictator.

Do you understand now? The people who want to overthrow Obama are the terrorists who disrespect the will of the people who voted. Most of these so called e-revolutionaries probably didn't even vote. Many of them probably don't understand that voting is one of the most patriotic things you can do. It's the legal overthrow of a government piece by piece, chair by chair, position by position, Senator by Senator, President by President etc.

Re:If the feds want you they can get you. Learn th (1)

Korruptionen (2647747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42241895)

Are you serious or just trololo'ing along comment after comment.

A revolution is every 4 years with our "election??" Our revolutionary process is elections?? You've got to be kidding me. There are two choices, and oddly, no matter who you choose, they seem to do the same dumb things that no one approves of, regardless of party. A revolution, my friend, would be removal of the cancer as whole, not injections of new incompetence.

You know, maybe our government wouldn't be so upset about leaks that were so damaging to their image if the those things shouldn't be happening in the first place. We send our military overseas and they document themselves killing civilians, but we are to pay no mind to their actions, but that the leak is "illegal." Come on. IF our government were required to be transparent, I would be willing to guarantee you that it would do less stupid and/or despicable things.

It's interesting to me that you speak of how we shouldn't step up to our government if we do not want to be thrown in jail for any reason or end up dead. You seem well educated... and I appreciate your statements. However, while I respectfully disagree... please note that there are a hell of alot more people than there is government.

Greyhound Bus Station - Locker 36 (1)

gavron (1300111) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232455)

So if I tell you that at

GREYHOUND BUS STATION LOCKER 36 COMBO X,Y,Z

I'm now "trafficking" in whatever is in that locker? Further if the materials in that locker are stolen I'm "trafficking in stolen goods"? If they are unlawful drugs I'm "trafficking in narcotics"? If there are firearms am I "part of a terrorist act"? ...or did I just share a link.

I hope the courts see through this subterfuge and reject that "posting a link" is equivalent to "trafficing in" whatever that link points to.

Ehud

Re:Greyhound Bus Station - Locker 36 (2)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232505)

That depends on whether they can prove you had knowledge of illegal contents inside the locker prior to passing on the address.

If the accused chap knew what the link pointed to and was passing it on in order to disseminate the stolen credit card information, then he should get into the same trouble that he would get into if he had printed copies of the stolen card information and was handing it around in the streets.

No, actually it doesn't (1)

gavron (1300111) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233043)

No, it doesn't. US law doesn't hold me responsible for telling you where a treasure is buried.-- even if I buried it myself.

If YOU seek it, get it, move it, sell it, etc, that's YOUR problem.

E

Re:No, actually it doesn't (1)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233589)

No, it doesn't. US law doesn't hold me responsible for telling you where a treasure is buried.-- even if I buried it myself. If YOU seek it, get it, move it, sell it, etc, that's YOUR problem. E

But a page of credit card details isn't legal treasure is it? If someone came down the street, gave you a tube and told you to bury it, and you looked inside to find the original Mona Lisa and you buried it and told someone where to find it, then you are responsible for trafficking in stolen goods.

Re:No, actually it doesn't (1)

gavron (1300111) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234847)

To work with your analogy, someone gave me a tube. I did not "open it and look inside" (aka use the credit card info or verify it).
I put the tube in a marked location and told the world where the tube is.

Now to complete the analogy, inside the tube is NOT the Mona Lisa... because if the painting of the Mona Lisa is in the buried tube, it's not on display at the Louvre in Parise. So instead, what's in the tube isn't the Mona Lisa itself, but rather "directions and instructions to bypass the Louvre security" that one COULD use to get the Mona Lisa were one to be criminally intented.

The mere existence of that information is legal, although it's expected to stay within Louvre staff confines. Telling all your friends "there's a camera above the door, an IR sensor on the ceiling, a breakage sound detector on the far wall" is legal. Writing it down is legal. Putting in a tube is legal. Telling everyone where the tube is is legal. Someone digging up that tube is legal. Someone reading the directions is legal. What is NOT legal is actually USING that information.

Now you could argue that "aha, credit card numbers are NOT easily visible to anyone who visits". This would be true. That doesn't change the nature of the fact that "writing it down, burying it, and showing people where to go get it" are in an of themselves legal actions. The only unlawful parts are "obtaining the information in the first place" [there's a statute for that] or "using that information" [and there's a statute for that also.] The website, links, etc., are all legal acts.

E

Re:No, actually it doesn't (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42236193)

What you dont get is that once a crime has been committed, all those LEGAL things come under great scrutiny, and they will attempt to burn you at every stage. Once an illegal act has been exposed, the entire chain of events becomes suspect.

Re:Greyhound Bus Station - Locker 36 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232507)

He knew what was in the locker so your argument is flawed

Yes (1, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232609)

If you point me towards a locker full of drugs, then ya you can get charged. You can't get out of trouble just by claiming you didn't actually do anything, only provided information. If it is clear you are an accomplice, you can get charged.

Remember laws are written around the "reasonable person" standard, not the "overly pedantic geek" standard. So if you knew to point me to a particular locker, and you knew the combination to that locker, and that locker was full of drugs, what is a reasonable person to assume? That you had no idea the drugs were there, and had nothing to do with it? No not so much, they'll probably conclude that you were involved in a drug deal.

Now context and intent are important as well. For example if you knew about the drugs because you overheard someone talking about it, and you told a police officer with the intent of letting them foil a drug deal, then you are in the clear. However if you knew about the drugs because you had someone place them there, and told me with the intent to complete a drug deal then you are guilty.

You don't have to be directly involved in a crime to be culpable of that crime. If that were the case, we could never bust crime bosses who order murders since, after all, they don't actually murder people, just instruct others to do so.

Re:Yes (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233109)

But it's interesting how only some laws use the 'reasonable person' standard.
Most reasonable people would consider what lobbyists do bribery and what the finance industry does to be fraud. But there laws use the 'overly pedantic lawyer' standard - if it's not spelled out (in triplicate) that something is a crime, then it's perfectly legal to do it.

How do you "transfer" a hyperlink? (1)

guises (2423402) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232467)

I'm having trouble following the summary here, are they just saying that he posted a link to some site in the #ProjectPM channel? What is this transfer business?

Re:How do you "transfer" a hyperlink? (1)

anyaristow (1448609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42232581)

Copy from this IRC, paste to this IRC.

It's not black and white (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232559)

Seeing as so many people are dumbfounded that it can be considered at all wrong and indictable for him to do such a thing lets consider the following:

A person knows of a quantity of drugs out in the open with no owner. He goes to a group of kids and says "Hey come with me I'll show you where a bunch of drugs are". Has he done anything wrong? Is he responsible in any way?

Now lets assume that he knew those kids were actively seeking drugs. Has he done anything wrong now? Is he responsible?

Now lets assume one of the kids dies from an O.D. Anything wrong now? Is he responsible now?

Finally, is it really as black and white as a lot of users here want to make it?

Re:It's not black and white (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233719)

Seeing as so many people are dumbfounded that it can be considered at all wrong and indictable for him to do such a thing lets consider the following:

A person knows of a quantity of drugs out in the open with no owner. He goes to a group of kids and says "Hey come with me I'll show you where a bunch of drugs are". Has he done anything wrong? Is he responsible in any way?

Now lets assume that he knew those kids were actively seeking drugs. Has he done anything wrong now? Is he responsible?

Now lets assume one of the kids dies from an O.D. Anything wrong now? Is he responsible now?

Finally, is it really as black and white as a lot of users here want to make it?

well, if he read about the drug stash on the morning newspaper and was ranting about it in the cafeteria..

Re:It's not black and white (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233897)

Yes, think of the kids. The kids will be the downfall of the civilized world, I tell you, because we're constantly reminded to think about their safety when we should be defending their freedom until they can defend it themselves. Instead we have people like you who don't know the difference between telling grown ups about their overlords and telling kids where to get high (which, btw, would still mostly be the responsibility of the person who put the stash there, not the person telling others about it.)

Re:It's not black and white (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234599)

> person knows of a quantity of drugs out in the open with no owner. He goes to a group of kids and says "Hey come with me I'll show you where a bunch of drugs are". Has he done anything wrong? Is he responsible in any way?

There is a law on the books in the context of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Why not use an example where you "say to a group of adults".

Re:It's not black and white (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42236277)

Further, there is a huge power discrepancy between children and adults, so it totally skews his argument.

Re:It's not black and white (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42236259)

It really depends on if the person is an adult or has some power or influence over the children. Adulthood, by its nature has power over children, so in that case, guilty. If you coerce the children with threat or violence, guilty. If you exert power in any way (even passively by virtue of being an adult instructing a child), guilty. If it was a minor casually mentioning it to another minor, not guilty. If it was a minor forcing it, guilty.

Spokes"person"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42232687)

Clearly he was a he, and therefore "spokesman". Stop pretending to be so bloody politically correct.

Re:Spokes"person"? (1)

Khashishi (775369) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234239)

Who the hell uses the word spokesman? Spokesperson is the new default word.

Re:Spokes"person"? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235519)

Lets just go all the way with the silliness and call them "spokes carbon based life forms."

Re:Spokes"person"? (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42239703)

Lets just go all the way with the silliness and call them "spokes carbon based life forms."

The Horta would like a word with you, speciesist (elementalist?).

I find it interesting that all of the sudden... (0)

3seas (184403) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233087)

we are hearing about all these people that have been found guilty....but we never heard of then when they were supposedly caught. So this brings up the question as to how much of this is just FUD to try and decrease the leaking.

The Occupy Movement knew not to have a "leader" as they knew such a person would become a target, a single point to kill a whole lot more, as has been efforted towards Wikileaks.

Now to recognize the Occupy movements intelligence on this matter, and he verifiability of such a tactic against Wikileaks, as well as the essence of being anonymous....

Seems maybe they have created fall guys to support a FUD story.

Re:I find it interesting that all of the sudden... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233363)

This is true if slashdot is your only source of news, however it was definitely announced that they were caught if you were following 'anonymous'.

haha aggrivated identity theft ROFL (0)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233107)

really thats a crime what he do beat people up with a keyboard for there credit cards? ROFL
stupid americans tricks are fer kids

That must have been a complicated href (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234901)

This should make the linking issue clear as mud. The link itself didn't contain anything, its just a link ffs.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>