Public Address | Cafe | Hard News: Can we get an adult up in here?

Public Address

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:48:02 +1300

Discussion from blog post.

Rich of Observationz

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:48:02 +1300

But Wikileaks / Anonymous aren't the same entity. I'm assuming that Anonymous hacked the emails and credit card data and then passed the content to Wikileaks.

Who in turn passed the content to the SST, etc.

Are we saying that all these entities are accessories after the fact (legally /?

Russell Brown

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:04:00 +1300

But Wikileaks / Anonymous aren?t the same entity. I?m assuming that Anonymous hacked the emails and credit card data and then passed the content to Wikileaks.

Who in turn passed the content to the SST, etc.

Yup.

Are we saying that all these entities are accessories after the fact (legally?

Rich of Observationz

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:04:46 +1300

Indeed. But with Anonymous being amorphous and leaderless, I doubt they are easy to dialogue with. (they may, for all I know, have left a memory stick in a left-luggage locker on a European railway station*)

Anyways (and this is description, not advocacy):

– Anonymous are a non-violent, non-legal direct?

Keir Leslie

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:16:07 +1300

Worked for Haganah, the IRA, the ANC. Didn't work for the Angry Brigade, Baader-Meinhof – they failed to get momentum before getting caught.

Actually, no, it didn't work for the IRA. The IRA failed to reach their goal of a united free Ireland and will almost certainly never reach that?

tatjna

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:35:15 +1300

Last time I checked, Anonymous didn't exist to serve the public.

I'm always amused by the way Anonymous is great when it does what people think it should and terrible when it doesn't.

I think publishing credit card details is misguided and dangerous, but I laughed my head off and?

Craig Ranapia

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:43:17 +1300

Are we saying that all these entities are accessories after the fact (legally / morally) to the hacking?

Would you be asking the question if this was a Murdoch tabloid publishing the credit card details of Greenpeace donors? As Russell said, I fail to see even the most feeble public?

Rich of Observationz

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:25:28 +1300

a Murdoch tabloid publishing the credit card details of Greenpeace donors?

I don't think we're expecting a double-page spread of CC numbers in Sunday's SST.

(Given their precarious finances, they'd probably just sign everyone on the list up for a year's subscription).

Tom Semmens

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:52:39 +1300

The people whose credit card details were published all deserve it ? they part of the global elite that fuck over workers everywhere. A teansy tiny taste of their own medicine is great to see. Posting your outrage at the temerity of a non-government organisation engaging in political crimes is?

Russell Brown

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:56:23 +1300

This is part of a war.

Wars are won through discipline.

nzlemming

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:10:57 +1300

How are the Cactus boys doing with a bozo filter?

Craig Ranapia

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:25:36 +1300

Wars have different rules. In a war, one man?s criminal is another man?s freedom fighter.

Must...not...Godwin. But I'm sure there are plenty of far-right theo-con folks who feel exactly the same about abortion... I mean, baby-killing scum. I guess abortion clinic workers who've found their addresses, phone numbers and the?

Alex Coleman

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:09:04 +1300

Some comments in this piece claiming to be from the anon group involved:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/27/anonymous-splinter-group-antisec-waging-war

I'm not sure how I feel about it to be honest. I'm not outraged, I know that much. I think it's interesting, and I don't think it's journalism. Therefore I don't think the 'public interest' stick?

Sacha

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:09:14 +1300

They'll use whatever Danyl comes up with :)

Russell Brown

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:51:59 +1300

The people whose credit card details were published all deserve it ? they part of the global elite that fuck over workers everywhere.

It's a real shame that you don't have a clue what you're on about.

Here's a list of 2756 people who had their accounts compromised and in?

Russell Brown

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:56:14 +1300

And further:

So far, two lists of credit card details have been published to the Internet by Anonymous members, one containing 3956 items, the other with 13,191 items. Some of those numbers have apparently been used to donate large sums of money to charitable organizations such as the American Red?

Russell Brown

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:04:49 +1300

And sure, it sucks that people will have to get new cards, but there are greater collateral damages in the world. I?m also pretty sure that if any of those responsible for the leak are caught, they?ll pay the price, and that they are aware of that fact.

Also, I?

Craig Young

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:46:03 +1300

Um, namesake, I believe you're referring to the Nuremberg Files incident in 2000, in which a US anti-abortion terrorist group called for 'justifiable homicide' of abortion providers and then published personal details online- whereupon these personal details were used to assassinate some of them. However, the details were derrived from?

DeepRed

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:03:38 +1300

The HBGary leak has easily been Anonymous' best by a long shot. And by the looks of things, there are far more worthy targets than Stratfor. Such as Karl Rove, the neo-cons' turd-polishers-in-chief.

Stephen Judd

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:13:20 +1300

I agree that Anonymous haven't done what would be most responsible or just or effective, but that's not who or what they are. They're a bunch of adolescents, literally or figuratively, who do it for the lulz. I understand it's frustrating, but this whole post seems like a non sequitur?

nzlemming

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:14:47 +1300

Shall I ask DIA to help?
#innocent

Keir Leslie

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:28:22 +1300

They?re a bunch of adolescents, literally or figuratively, who do it for the lulz.

Doesn't mean they shouldn't act morally. They won't, but.

Stephen Judd

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:39:13 +1300

They won?t, but.

Here we are in complete agreement.

Craig Ranapia

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:52:52 +1300

However, the details were derrived from public register data, openly accessible to the public- which raises questions of its own.

No, you're quite right. But I'd hate to think what far-right loons would do with a hacked copy of Planned Parenthood's donor records. Using Semmens logic, they're supporting infanticide so?

Greg Dawson

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:19:07 +1300

Would you be asking the question if this was a Murdoch tabloid publishing the credit card details of Greenpeace donors? As Russell said, I fail to see even the most feeble public interest defense of publishing anyone?s credit card details.

The question Rich asked was whether we were holding wikileaks?

Angus Robertson

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:40:56 +1300

Quite – and let me draw an analogy here. I'm working at the dining room table with the ranchslider open. If I go to the toilet and come back to discover someone passing by opportunistically hooked off with my laptop, does my poor security somehow mitigate or even justify that?

Russell Brown

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:42:33 +1300

A more appropriate simile would be holding the dom post responsible for what the sunday star times has published. Or really, holding a newspaper responsible for the myspace page of a 14 year old.

That?s a vivid comparison, but not really an accurate one. One Anonymous source [[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/wikileaks-anonymous-partners/|frankly described the?

James Bremner

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:52:12 +1300

I have subscribed to Stratfor for about 10 years as a way to get better information than you can from the media. I think the idea of Stratfor as a "secret CIA" is a joke (as much of a joke as Stratfor's website security apparently!!) It is just a source?

James Butler

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:58:50 +1300

The HBGary leak has easily been Anonymous? best by a long shot.

Certainly their funniest.

Greg Dawson

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:18:11 +1300

That?s a vivid comparison, but not really an accurate one. One Anonymous source frankly described the relationship with Wikileaks to Wired as a partnership, and an ongoing one

I know I'm being a stickler, but I think my comparison stands, given the extremely distributed way that Anonymous works.

To stretch?

Craig Young

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:47:50 +1300

I think the issue is that hacktivism can be useful as long as it is arguably in the public interest and involves an ethical commitment to democratic and corporate accountability and transparency that forestalls potential and tangible harm to the life and safety of others. However, not all hacker activity?