Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anonymous Warhead Targets US Sentencing Commission

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the they-hate-that dept.

Crime 252

theodp writes "Late Friday, Violet Blue reports, the U.S. Sentencing Commission website was hacked and government files distributed by Anonymous in 'Operation Last Resort.' The U.S. Sentencing Commission sets guidelines for sentencing in United States Federal courts, and on the defaced ussc.gov website Anonymous cited the recent suicide of Aaron Swartz as 'a line that has been crossed.' Calling the launch of its new campaign a "warhead," Anonymous vowed, 'This time there will be change, or there will be chaos.'" Adds reader emil: "Anonymous has not specified exactly what files they have obtained. The various files were named after Supreme Court judges. At a regular interval commencing today, Anonymous will choose one media outlet and supply them with heavily redacted partial contents."

cancel ×

252 comments

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

at the most they can shed light.. (3, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703277)

..to who actually makes the law as it is practiced in united states.

you'd think that the sentencing guidelines would be written to the law, but no??

Re:at the most they can shed light.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703341)

"heavily redacted partial content"? What is the point then. They go to the effort of doing this, naming their operation something quite aggressive ("warhead") and then pussyfoot around with the results? Are they hoping that they will be ignored or the response will be weaker?

Re:at the most they can shed light.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703531)

What I understood is that the redacted versions will be sent out piecemeal to news outlets, while the full reveal will happen later "if demands are not met."

Re:at the most they can shed light.. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703889)

What demands? Are they asking the government to pinkie swear that they'll stop doing all those naughty things? What a bunch of morons.

Re:at the most they can shed light.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703571)

The overly dramatic video made mention of collateral damage and browser exploits. My guess is it's porn history or something, and they know there's going to be backlash.

Re:at the most they can shed light.. (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703693)

If they were law they wouldn't call them guidelines. There is no secret in what the guidelines are though.

Re:at the most they can shed light.. (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704251)

Laws are made by both the Federal Government and the States. The guidelines are in place so the punishment for a crime in one state is similar to the same crime in another state.

Re:at the most they can shed light.. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704307)

Laws are made by both the Federal Government and the States. The guidelines are in place so the punishment for a crime in one state is similar to the same crime in another state.

like for smoking a joint?

point was that it might shed light on _who_ decides - and based on what reasoning - if the guideline says that smoking a joint is three years in the joint, 20 dollar fine or nothing.

Re:at the most they can shed light.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704415)

No, the laws generally specify a range of fines and or prison times. The guidelines are there to give some predictability to how much the fine is and how long the sentence is. As well as to make it a little easier to spot when a punishment is unusual.

Let's kowtow! (4, Funny)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703287)

Idea: let's give in to what they want. Bow deeply and honestly, and maybe they might forgive us our sins. What could possibly go wrong? After all, these attacks would certainly cease.

Re:Let's kowtow! (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703325)

How about doing it because it's the right thing to do?

Re:Let's kowtow! (4, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703393)

If anyone were interested in doing the right thing, they would likely have done so before being threatened.

Re:Let's kowtow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703983)

when it comes to governments that is not always the case... by a longshot.

Re:Let's kowtow! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703449)

Letting people commit crimes and get away with it is the right thing to do?

Re:Let's kowtow! (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703579)

Charges fitting what was actually alleged and punishment fitting the crime are the right things to do.

Re:Let's kowtow! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703701)

Charges fitting what was actually alleged and punishment fitting the crime are the right things to do.

Charges fitting what was actually alleged is what actually occurred. Punishment never got a chance to happen.

Re:Let's kowtow! (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703767)

No, felony charges for what amounted to a simple trespass are nothing like appropriate.

Re:Let's kowtow! (4, Insightful)

anomaly256 (1243020) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704069)

It wasn't even trespass really. From what I read he had permission to access the servers, just not in the manner in which he did (automated crawler). This is more like being invited inside the house, but then stepping on the carpet before taking your shoes off (inconsiderate, but not intentionally malicious), apologizing and stepping back but having your host call the police on you and trying to file charges for damages against you anyway, then the overzealous police chasing you down even though your host has admitted they over reacted and no longer wish to pursue the matter.

Re:Let's kowtow! (5, Insightful)

Ironhandx (1762146) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704131)

Not quite, a better metaphor would be that he was invited into a house to take pictures of *anything* he wanted.

They then called the cops because he took pictures of everything.

Re:Let's kowtow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704539)

And then gave them out to everybody because 'Information wants to be free!'

Ignoring the fact that the people in question only rented the items in their house and the 'owners' of said items did not give permission for copies of them to be made.

I think that clarifies and finishes the analogy that needs to be made.

Re:Let's kowtow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704211)

Then why haven't you turned yourself in to the feds yet?
You have committed more felonies today alone than Aaron Swartz did the day he killed himself.

No? Thought not, hypocrite

Re:Let's kowtow! (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703705)

How about doing it because it's the right thing to do?

Doing WHAT?

Re:Let's kowtow! (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703783)

Follow the thread, RTFA and you shall see.

Re:Let's kowtow! (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704077)

yeah, did that. It's still not clear what the blackmailers want, exactly and therefore not clear whether it is "right." Is is "right" to comply with blackmailers in principle? I would say not, and I would say that such stunts have zero likelihood of getting sentencing guidelines made less strict for computer crime. If anything, it will make the people on the commission even more determined to deal with "these people" in a draconian manner.

Seriously, isn't it written somewhere, "Never try to threaten the guy who's holding the big guns?" It's tactically a bad move.

Re:Let's kowtow! (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704151)

I didn't say I thought this was the right approach nor that I thought it would work, I just said I approve of the objective. We should revise the guidelines and reign in prosecutors in general. Not because anon demands it, but because it is the right thing for our society.

Re:Let's kowtow! (4, Informative)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704197)

Watch the video or read the text ... It is very easy to comprehend. Enact reforms that "respectable" people suggest. Anonymous does not expect nor wish to be part of the negotiations,

However, in order for there to be a peaceful resolution to this crisis, certain things need to happen. There must be reform of outdated and poorly-envisioned legislation, written to be so broadly applied as to make a felony crime out of violation of terms of service, creating in effect vast swathes of crimes, and allowing for selective punishment. There must be reform of mandatory minimum sentencing. There must be a return to proportionality of punishment with respect to actual harm caused, and consideration of motive and mens rea. The inalienable right to a presumption of innocence and the recourse to trial and possibility of exoneration must be returned to its sacred status, and not gambled away by pre-trial bargaining in the face of overwhelming sentences, unaffordable justice and disfavourable odds. Laws must be upheld unselectively, and not used as a weapon of government to make examples of those it deems threatening to its power.

For good reason the statue of lady justice is blindfolded. No more should her innocence be besmirked, her scales tipped, nor her swordhand guided. Furthermore there must be a solemn commitment to freedom of the internet, this last great common space of humanity, and to the common ownership of information to further the common good.

We make this statement do not expect to be negotiated with; we do not desire to be negotiated with. We understand that due to the actions we take we exclude ourselves from the system within which solutions are found. There are others who serve that purpose, people far more respectable than us, people whose voices emerge from the light, and not the shadows. These voices are already making clear the reforms that have been necessary for some time, and are outright required now.

It is these people that the justice system, the government, and law enforcement must engage with. Their voices are already ringing strong with a chorus of determined resolution. We demand only that this chorus is not ignored. We demand the government does not make the mistake of hoping that time will dampen its ringing, that they can ride out this wave of determination, that business as usual can continue after a sufficient period of lip-service and back-patting.

Not this time. This time there will be change, or there will be chaos ...

Re:Let's kowtow! (4, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704493)

Seriously, isn't it written somewhere, "Never try to threaten the guy who's holding the big guns?" It's tactically a bad move.

Indeed, they are shooting at a hippopotamus with a .22, at best they are just pissing it off. The intellectually curious are trapped in open ground between them and in grave danger of being trampled or shot.

Re:Let's kowtow! (2, Interesting)

geek (5680) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704175)

How about doing it because it's the right thing to do?

Is it? Swartz broke the law, knowingly and willingly. The government didn't kill him. He killed himself. He was all set to have his day in court to fight the charges and bring about awareness to the issues. Instead, like the little coward he was, he killed himself.

I feel bad for his family, but no one is responsible for his death but himself. I look at a coward like Swartz and I feel revulsion at his cowardice. I look at someone like Mandela (tho I disagree with his politics) and I see an extremely brave man that was willing to spend the majority of his adult life in prison for what he believed. Mandela didn't kill himself and his plight was far far worse than Swartz's.

All this BS going on about Swartz is made up, Reddit media nonsense. A coward offed himself. End of story.

Re:Let's kowtow! (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704271)

A speeder knowingly breaks the law as well, but I don't think multiple felony counts is the right answer. The suicide is irrelevant to that. Perhaps it put him over the edge, perhaps it didn't. Either way the prosecutor vastly overreached.

Re:Let's kowtow! (-1, Offtopic)

niyagamu (2825201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703463)

http://www.cloud65.com/ [cloud65.com] what Chad replied I am amazed that people can profit $8145 in four weeks on the computer. did you see this link

Re:Let's kowtow! (0)

pitchpipe (708843) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703673)

Let's kowtow! Idea: let's give in to what they want. Bow deeply and honestly, and maybe they might forgive us our sins. What could possibly go wrong? After all, these attacks would certainly cease.

You're funny. It also sounds like you're part of the problem.

Re:Let's kowtow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703727)

Let's kowtow! Idea: let's give in to what they want. Bow deeply and honestly, and maybe they might forgive us our sins. What could possibly go wrong? After all, these attacks would certainly cease.

You're funny. It also sounds like you're part of the problem.

It's not sounding like you're a part of the solution, either.

Re:Let's kowtow! (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703911)

It's not sounding like you're a part of the solution, either.

The less people are part of the problem, the closer we are to a solution, so I'll take that.

Re:Let's kowtow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704413)

It's a good idea to try and comply with unreasonable requests and see what happens, but I am afraid we already let things like TSA groping, stupid patents and first to file and blank media taxes through, so it's time to stop.

BTW this kind of anonymous operations will effect change. The corrupt powerful will point at activists and push for tighter control of the net. It doesn't matter if anonymous does this for a good reason or with a noble intention.

Real fucking radicals (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703319)

I'm sure this whole "warhead" thing has them terrified to the core.

Think of the servers..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Give us a break anonymous...live in the real fucking world for a change...no one gives a fuck if you take some dumb server offline for a few days. You may as well be protesting in the middle of fucking Alaska.

Fair enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703375)

Then you'd prefer the US Gov put their efforts into more important things, right, and not waste their time on this?

Re:Real fucking radicals (1)

wirefarm (18470) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703441)

You apparently don't get it at all, AC.

The "warhead" is the encrypted file that the defaced page served to distribute.

They took down the server not to cause a disruption as much as to advertise and draw awareness to their cause.

Re: Real fucking radicals (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703491)

Yawn. They need to get real. No one cares about their website, even themselves.

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703339)

"This time there will be change, or there will be chaos."

There goes the internet

So long "Hacker". Thy meaning is forever tarnished (4, Insightful)

eksith (2776419) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703361)

I'm not gonna go into whether or not this "warhead" business is a good idea. It's probably not, since it wouldn't be what Aaron Swartz himself would. He would have made a lot of noise and brought public attention had he been able to cope, but defacements were beneath him. Also, it's likely just dirt courtesy of WikiLeaks.

But whatever hope anyone had about restoring that term to what it was just went up in a flame of digital smoke.

Re:So long "Hacker". Thy meaning is forever tarnis (0)

Tommy Bologna (2431404) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703495)

You were "not gonna go into whethere or not this 'warhead' business is a good idea," then in the very next sentence you do exactly what you just said you weren't going to do. This is how you instantly undercut your credibility.

Re:So long "Hacker". Thy meaning is forever tarnis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703675)

Of all the things I worry about, whether Tommy Bologna finds me credible is pretty far down on the list.

GP is making pretty vague arguments in support of his claims. He's basically offering unsubstantiated opinion. You either agree with him or you don't. There's nothing in his post to convince anyone of anything. I don't even know why you are bringing credibility into it.

Re:So long "Hacker". Thy meaning is forever tarnis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703835)

Okay. Lead sentence is first-person. Second paragraph, first and second sentence third-person, then second-person before third and back to first... How many of you wrote that comment?

Re:So long "Hacker". Thy meaning is forever tarnis (1)

eksith (2776419) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703843)

Going into != touching upon. Protection aside, I guess they don't really make that difference more clear in sex ed :/

Re:So long "Hacker". Thy meaning is forever tarnis (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703627)

But whatever hope anyone had about restoring [the term "Hacker"] to what it was just went up in a flame of digital smoke.

The White House [slashdot.org] , among others [slashdot.org] , seems to already be aware that "Hacker" has more than one definition. The fight to protect the TMRC sense of "hacker" is over. We won.

Re:So long "Hacker". Thy meaning is forever tarnis (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704389)

crackers vs. hackers nitpicking on words was lost before word hackers was applied to it's current use.
because crackers are things you eat with tea.

So I've been curious when the fuck did hacker not include "crackers"? 1975? because up from 1980 it sure didn't in any written word.
just face it, cracks only refers to sw someone has already altered.

but here's the point: hacker includes people who do hacking - even if the hacking is of the black hat kind. just live with it.

Really Anonymous? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703377)

Methinks this is more hoax than serious threat. I checked Google's cache [googleusercontent.com] of the vandalized USSC site and found the instruction to create the "Warhead" file near the bottom of the page:

$ cat Scalia* Kennedy* Thomas* Ginsburg* Breyer* Roberts* Alito* Sotomayor* Kagan* > Warhead-US-DOJ-LEA-2013.aes256 && rm -rf /

Re:Really Anonymous? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704515)

Breakdown of the command for the linux-unaware:

$ = commands running not as root (# would be running as root), no indication of what directory the command is being executed from
cat Scalia* Kennedy* Thomas* Ginsburg* Breyer* Roberts* Alito* Sotomayor* Kagan* > Warhead-US-DOJ-LEA-2013.aes256 = Combine all the files in the directory that start with the names listed into a single file called Warhead-US-DOJ-LEA-2013.aes256
&& = Run another command only if the cat command preceding && successfully completes
rm -rf / = erase the / directory and everything in it

The cat command could work assuming the command was executed in a directory the user has write access to. The rm -rf / command though wouldn't nuke the server. Non-root users can't write files and directories owned by root unless they're part of a group with write access or the files. Of course, they could have recursively chmodded / to 777 or something, but if you could do that, why would you not be running as root? Also, if you wanted to nuke files, you wouldn't use rm because it would leave the files behind. Instead, you'd use shred or wipe or even cat or dd in a hurry.

Yea... right. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703407)

https://www.facebook.com/notes/usa-government-took-you-over/anonymous-releases-warhead-encryption-keys-warhead-us-doj-lea-2013aes256/202266033246726

Because somehow when anonymous is going to release partial redacted versions of "mind blowing" information(implying they are going to kee
more sensitive and damaging content for later), they release the encryption keys to the public.

Nothing in these "warheads" will be anything more damaging than what anonymous could find by /googling/ their targets.

Incompetent angsty teenagers.

Re:Yea... right. (0, Flamebait)

terlmann (1271484) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703433)

I posted this comment. Yes, the one right above this. I wasn't logged in, sorry.

Re:Yea... right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703649)

Uh, don't believe this douchebag, mods. Just pathetic karma whoring.

Re:Yea... right. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703709)

No, I posted it you asshole.

Re:Yea... right. (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703469)

That is not necessarily true, it would depend on what directory the command was issued in on what server. That is, unless the 'command line' was just a metaphor for what is in the 'warhead'.

Re:Yea... right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703787)

Here's what is likely in a typical "supreme warhead" file

$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=Thomas.1 count=10

Re:Yea... right. (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703821)

Well if we're going to do proof by random assertion, I say they contain video proof that the Supreme court are all the hybrid love children of the Roswell aliens and Joe McCarthy.

Just as much proof as you have but mine is at least amusing.

Taking bets & Eric Holder sucks donkey balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703443)

Who wants to bet the warheads are fucked up pornography?
Sexual harassment accusations swept under the rug?
Judicial Review for $$$?

What have they found on 2 of the most powerful people in the United States? I kinda want the Justice Department to continue acting like douche-nozzles so we can find out what fucked up perversion or greed has corrupted one of the most hallowed institutions of the US Government.

People are worried about gun control? Anonymous is rapidly demonstrating that computers are a much more powerful tool of destruction and means of expressing dissent. We don't need to regulate high capacity 10 round magazines!
-We need to limit computers to 8 cores and/or 1 military style feature such as multi-threading.
-Only pedophiles need advanced public key encryption. DES is perfectly adequate for price hunting and ebay shopping.
-Single-disc DVD-burners should be banned, so I'm drafting a bill titled: The Sensible Americans for Regulation of Assault Style Automatic Disc Changers
Hunters don't need to worry about their legitimate need to burn CDs from iTunes, so long as their writable drive does not have more than one Automatic Disc Changer features such as
A. Eject button
B. Small hole for paperclip removal of miltary-type jammed Warez or Pr0n cds. I'm told this is called a "bullet-button" among the most elite members of Anonymous.

Because the cost is too great to let even 1 hacker slip through the cracks, I have created a subsection prohibiting any Veteran with PTSD, or SSRI prescribed Ass-burgers deviant from possession of a modem with an upload speed greater than 56kbps.

 

I love Anonymous! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703453)

At least somebody is standing up for our rights. Let's face it - most people just want to stuff their face with junk food and watch American Idol. They don't like to question authority because doing that makes them feel uncomfortable. Most people are sheep.

Wake me up when there is chaos all around. I'm gonna get me some stockbrokers, bankers, and politicians. Bang, bang, baby! Come and join me. Direct action + lethal force = change. Always has been, always will be.

Question (2, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703477)

At least somebody is standing up for our rights. Let's face it - most people just want to stuff their face with junk food and watch American Idol. They don't like to question authority because doing that makes them feel uncomfortable. Most people are sheep.

Yes, hear hear! They are liberating us. But there was something odd from the summary:

At a regular interval commencing today, we will choose one media outlet and supply them with heavily redacted partial contents of the file.

Ah, so the "information wants to be free" right up until it's you who has access to the information. We have been liberated from being manipulated "sheep" of the US government and are now part of a flock shepherded by anonymous individuals? And ... uh ... that has gained us what exactly? Out of the frying pan into the fire? If I can't trust the US Government and I can name their members, how can I trust Anonymous whom I cannot name?

Re:Question (3, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703539)

This. The folks who Overlord the new revolution are anonymous...how might I contact someone if I have a question? Sure. Folks with zero accountability in shaping opinion and behavior for the rest of us. What could go wrong with that?

Re:Question (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703677)

...how might I contact someone if I have a question?

I'm sure they read Slashdot. Remember, only one question per post.

Re:Question (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704201)

Not so different from the others that are doing the same shaping on all of us behind piles of cash and paid puppets. But at least this anonymous do it directly without hiding that they are feeding opinion.

Think you're missing the point a little bit... (1, Redundant)

RanceJustice (2028040) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703695)

Anonymous is in no way a "replacement government". They're a loosely confederated group of people who have a problem with the ways that many governments, and the moneyed corporate puppetmasters that control them, are treating their citizens and the world at large; especially, when it comes to privacy, free speech, and The Internet. They're acting in ways to reveal the corruption and give the people a fighting chance, through dissemination of information. That's it. They are not lobbying to be a replacement for the current government; it is up to the people to, when given a more even playing field, decide that for themselves. Hell, if anything this makes them MORE credible; especially when it comes to politics, the people who really are deserving of respect and would serve the people as intended, often do not want the job. Anonymous isn't "sheparding" you, simply making information available to put We The People on a slightly more even field with those that have done us harm by claiming equality when in truth "Some animals are more equal than others"; its up to all of us what to do with it.

In respect to the redaction and issue, I am gathering it is two-fold and in no way compromises their integrity. First, it shows restraint and that Anonymous is willing to work within the 'whistleblower' framework, not (as many opponents would have you believe) that this is the work of anarchists who just spew information about without a thought to the process or ramifications thereof. Many have forgotten how Wikileaks offered to work with the Pentagon and State department prior to their releases, asked for where to redact if there were some actual credible national security issues etc... and were met with a simple "Don't do it, we're not even going to talk to you". By redacting information where necessary and offering it through verifiable journalist sources, Anonymous counters the propaganda of the opponents in word and deed. Secondly, it provides some insurance against attempts to litigate, arrest, capture, or kill individuals involved. The insane Wikileaks debacle (along with other leaks from Stratfor, cables, FBI etc...) shows to what level the US government is willing to go to pretend malfeasance and embarrassment is to be cloaked as national security, up to and including ruining the lives of those who are doing nothing but showing the emperor is wearing no clothes. Showing a redacted form of a document can always be followed up by a further revealed one, especially if those involved are smart about distributing the files, encryption keys etc. Ultimately, Anonymous is doing the right thing by this process of events, assuming it comes to its logical conclusion.

Anonymous isn't asking for your trust, but simply putting data before you and asking for you to make your own damn mind.

Re:Think you're missing the point a little bit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704039)

What horseshit.

First, it shows restraint and that Anonymous is willing to work within the 'whistleblower' framework

Really? What part of defacing a website fits into the 'whistleblower' framework. Hint: it's up to the journalists and newspapers to do the redacting. An uninterested third party.

Anonymous isn't asking for your trust, but simply putting data before you and asking for you to make your own damn mind.

You don't see how someone withholding certain information could push an agenda by doing so? It's lies by omission. They should had the data over to a reputable newspaper and let them do the redacting. This is just like that "Collateral Murder" video that neglected to include footage of that helicopter crew being fired upon multiple times earlier that day. Of course they had itchy trigger fingers.

It isn't about them being a government, you idiot. It's about them omitting the data that doesn't align with their agenda. Don't go to bat for these guys, they have motivations just like anyone else! They thrive on building a stupid reputation. True whistleblowers do not.

Re:Think you're missing the point a little bit... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704101)

In respect to the redaction and issue, I am gathering it is two-fold and in no way compromises their integrity.

Oh?

Seems to me that you can say almost anything with some selective redacting/editting - not hard at all to remove the parts that paint your enemies in a good light.

Nice media strategy (5, Funny)

PCM2 (4486) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703475)

Anonymous will choose one media outlet and supply them with heavily redacted partial contents.

Well, that's one way to get the word out -- but word to the wise, going upstairs and showing your mom doesn't count as a "media outlet."

Re:Nice media strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704441)

You clearly underestimate the "moms" communication network. It is clearly many times more efficient than that newfangled "internet".

Awfully Pretentious (2)

mlookaba (2802163) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703533)

The "We immediately convened an emergency council blah blah blah" thing just reeks of pre-teen chat rooms or IRC channels (back in the day).

The video was pretty good quality, and I agree with the message. But *please*.

Re:Awfully Pretentious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703935)

I found it to be humorous.

Just publish the files (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703569)

Here we go again. Stop posturing and just publish the documents. As appealing as fighting for justice and equality, this grand standing and attempt to use "secret" information to extract concession is at best juvenile, at worst a power game. Neither of which serves to advance justice and equality.

If there is information pertinent to illegal or unethical government action. Just publish it and let the public judge for themselves. Otherwise, how is the blackmail strategy of Anonymous different from that of our governments.

Re:Just publish the files (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703801)

Publishing means to put content into the public. It can only be public if people are aware that it exists. So some posturing is a necessary part of gaining media coverage, otherwise hardly anyone will bother even looking for the published material, let alone read it.

Re:Just publish the files (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703847)

It's psychology directed at news outlets. Just releasing a big chunk of files containing some incriminating data might get a few people riled up for a while, but it's relatively uninteresting to the general public. Tease news outlets with hyperbolae and a stream of disparate partial data, and you can drum up enough interest in the general public that larger news outlets actually want to cover the juicier bits.

Re:Just publish the files (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704237)

This. Unless is a bluff trying to make the government to reveal themselves trying to stop this, showing the info in plain form and without so much theater should not give them time to react. And if they can hide the evidence after being published, they could hide the decrypt key as well..

Re:Just publish the files (2, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704381)

Otherwise, how is the blackmail strategy of Anonymous different from that of our governments.

Do you know why our government uses threats, horsetrading, grandstanding, and blackmail? Because they work.

Personally, I use different tools to work for what I believe in. But if I see a guy using tools I don't like to achieve good, and he's competing with a guy who is using those same tools to achieve evil, I cheer for the guy who is working to achieve good. If the only difference between Anonymous and our government is their objective, what else should I judge them on?

As long as we continue to use our justice system in this abusive way, more and more people are going to resort to the same dirty tools and tactics that we use. The way to stop the spiral is not to chide them for sinking to our level, it is to stop abusing our justice system.

What if the Government Overreacts? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703583)

Far fetched to be sure, but could one possible eventuality be the U.S. Gov't Beginning a War on Hacktivsm? Operation Hackysack could commence and all that's pure in the World would remain safe for another day.

Re:What if the Government Overreacts? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704473)

An apache helicopter taking out a few homes in suburbia is not an overreaction. Obviously. Just a gentile reminder for the rest of you pimply faced nerds that not even your mothers basement can protect you.

The thing about being anonymous (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703625)

Nobody knows when you just disappear.

Anybody can become anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703629)

So anybody can adopt the non-de-plume "Anonymous" and tar themselves and any other "Anonymous" pretender with the same brush. Doesn't this in effect make "Anonymous" synonymous with the worst behavior any "Anonymous" adopts? And therefore "Anonymous" is ultimately doomed to total failure by being "Anonymous". What a pointless wank!

Re:Anybody can become anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704055)

Doesn't this in effect make "Anonymous" synonymous with the median behavior any "Anonymous" adopts? And therefore "Anonymous" may or may not be doomed to total failure by being "Anonymous". What an average wank!

FTFY

Typical Anonymous (4, Insightful)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703653)

This is typical of Anonymous's "hacktivism". The problems with federal prosecutor over reach has been a problem for decades, but Anonymous didn't care at all about it until it impacted one of their own. And even now they're focussed purely on retaliating over someone who can't be helped rather than trying to get publicity for the thousands of other (mostly poor and minority) people out there right now being victimized just the same way.

And to top it all off, the organization they decide to attack is the USSC, one of the few parts of the government that actually been an ally on this issue (for example, by criticizing the way drug sentencing is biased against minorities).

Re:Typical Anonymous (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703915)

The problems with federal prosecutor over reach has been a problem for decades, but Anonymous didn't care at all about it until it impacted one of their own

Quelle suprise! People are highly motivated to protest and become activists when government policies and actions begin to start adversely affecting the social groups they belong to. There's absolutely fucking.nothing.new about this. This is the way it works with activism among the general populace.

Re:Typical Anonymous (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704229)

Yes, but their "activism" doesn't extend beyond anyone they don't have a direct personal connection too. Look at their video: Schwartz, Assange, Manning. Of all the cases of people being tyrannized by the law enforcement system in this country (many far worse then Aaron Schwartz), we're supposedly believe those are the three that cross the line? Or just the only three Anonymous actually cares about?

And what exactly is the goal of this effort? Name one specific reform Anonymous wants to see implemented that would improve the situation? Or is this just Kony2013; get a lot of news for a few weeks and then move on to whatever the next cause celeb is and forget all about this one even though nothing has really changed?

Re:Typical Anonymous (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704397)

they? who they? I think you're misunderstanding "anonymous".
do your own anonymous vid of the wounded knee massacre if you want.

that's how it works. just replace "anonymous" with "guy on the street" in your post and you might get the point.

Re:Typical Anonymous (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704405)

The problems with federal prosecutor over reach has been a problem for decades,

So can you think of a better time than now to start fixing it? If you really believe this is a problem, don't attack your allies. Be thankful for their support, even though you saw the problem before they did.

Why do this? (1)

texchanchan (471739) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703683)

It's the result of fury.

You Reap (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703691)

What You Sow...

Re:You Reap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704099)

Great, another sweater, just what I need.

Toxic government (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703733)

Everyone will argue whether this is a good idea, whether we should "work within the system", whether this is something that Aaron would have done, "ballot box, soapbox, ammo box", and so on. The arguments are patently obvious, and not particularly new or innovative. We've heard it all before, here and elsewhere.

The federal government has always been toxic to the citizenry, and it seems like in recent years the level of malevolence and spite from the people in charge have reached critical levels. Like a pot of superheated water, a nucleating agent will make the whole thing flash to steam.

Efforts to fix the problem from within have failed. The system is flexible enough that it will change to prevent any attempts to fix it. People have been trying for years, to no avail. (People have voted for smaller government, less war, and human rights for decades - how has that worked out?)

Most of what we depend on for civilization does not come from the federal government. The protections of law, community services, even many entitlements are run at the state level. We could do away with the federal government almost entirely and everyday life would continue uninterrupted.

(Would anyone notice if suddenly we no longer had a war on drugs, no searches at airports, no wars fought on foreign soil, no foreign military bases? Could we just dispense with all military and discretionary spending, leaving social security, medicare, and VA benefits intact? Who would attack us if we didn't have a military? How much would productivity increase if instead of paying to keep people in prison [wikipedia.org] , we freed people to become taxpayers?)

People are losing faith in the government. At some point, government is no longer an asset to the people, but a tumor which must be attacked and destroyed.

If you dislike the tactics Anonymous are using, then by all means show us your alternative.

Otherwise, outright hostility towards the federal government will increase and people will eventually realize that having no federal government is better than what we have now.

At that point it will all come tumbling down - very quickly.

All it takes is a spark, a nucleating incident, or a viral video.

Re:Toxic government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704285)

Of course the response here is going to be along the lines of: "You fool! We NEED our military to protect us from all the evils in the world."
This will be stated with either the slack-jawed drawl of the brainwashed and there will be no questioning of that "fact." Then we'll hear about how the peacenicks would lead us to ruin with their pacifist ways. No thought at all about the cost/benefit ratio of the bloated, treasury raping, terrorist-generating ring of thugs we call the US military.

Re:Toxic government (2, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704491)

(People have voted for smaller government, less war, and human rights for decades - how has that worked out?)

Since 1980 people have pretty much consistently voted for more government benefits, bigger government programs and whatever else the government says it needs to increase payments to people. We have gotten ourselves into a financial mess with a president promoting lower taxes and a Congress that spends as much as possible to keep the gravy train going.

Would anyone notice if suddenly we no longer had a war on drugs, no searches at airports, no wars fought on foreign soil, no foreign military bases?

Sure you would. No more searches at airports would mean the instant revocation of insurance coverage for airlines - remember, they proved they can't handle the security screening. No foreign military bases would mean all the cheap stuff from China and South Korea would disappear in a blinding flash. North Korea is just waiting for the US to give up on the South so they can walk in and take over. We could probably give up bases in Europe now, but in a lot of ways these bases are a net gain for everyone's economy.

Foreign wars? Sure, I suppose. Today we are trying to follow a "You broke it, you own it" philosophy and it is taking time - because the countries are far less stable than either Germany or Japan were at the end of WWII where we had to follow a similar course. Unfortunately some bright folks thought we could do this on the cheap and not bother the people about it. I'd say a much better course would have been to sell bonds to support the effort and maybe a special "war tax". We could have actually seen if Congress would have gone along with that. I suspect they would have. Afganistan was a pretty popular engagement.

Bill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703745)

Great: Anonymous has it, and will show what they want to who they want when they want. So much for openness. How is this any different? I guess Anonymous _is_ the U.S. Sentencing Commission. If not, I don't know who they are so I have no recourse. How is this any better than .... anything? This parasitizes and damages a lot of worthwhile causes.

Which anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42703781)

Will the "real" Anonymous please stand up and put an end to this nonsense?

Re:Which anonymous? (1)

black3d (1648913) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704497)

There is no "real" Anonymous, that's kinda the point..

Yeah, right (2, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703815)

You are faced with overwhelming public outcry about injustice. Daily press reveals ever more injustice, fanning flames. Whitehouse petition obligates response. Congressional investigations, laws proposed to rein you in. A martyr. What to do? "Hack" your own website and make threats against the Supremes so you can take the line "We do not negotiate with terrorists." Close book, no investigation needed. Brilliant!

Re:Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704125)

at least someone else is as paranoid as i

What about Aaron Swartz (1)

t3kn04r33k (2674217) | about a year and a half ago | (#42703991)

This is a prime example of how idealistic ideology can get you in trouble. unbridled idealism that is not tempered in reality is exactly what happened to Aaron

Re:What about Aaron Swartz (2)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704295)

No, what happened to him was that he was persecuted by the feds beyond any measure of proportionality between his crime and the possible sentence. When fascists destroy people, should we blame the victims or the jackbooted thugs? I vote we blame the MFing thugs.

Re:What about Aaron Swartz (1)

chronokitsune3233 (2170390) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704343)

Idealistic ideology indeed. However, the meaning is true nonetheless. People's freedoms are being taken away despite the fact that they are meant to be guaranteed. I don't know about Aaron, but I must say that I'm inclined to agree with the motives behind Anonymous' movement, even if I disagree with the methods and tactics they employ. We are not Borg, and we will not be assimilated. Ultimately, I think Anonymous is acting as the voice of the People because the People have lost their voice and is trying to help them find it once more. It's a way to say, "Wake the heck up, everybody! You're no longer living in 'The Land of the Free!'"

Look at the options available for the average group of citizens to effect change. The White House has petitions that seem to be going nowhere, so what's the point of doing it in the first place? Members of the U.S. Congress and even the President of the United States are written countless letters, few of which actually cross their eyes in comparison, so that's not a good idea either. The only option left is a more direct course of action. This falls into two categories: violent action and nonviolent action. Nonviolence is being exercised here. Nobody is dying, and nobody is getting wounded in the slightest. I wonder when the violence will start?

By the way, freedom happens in nature, too. When animals are trapped, they'll do anything to get away. Around here, there's a well-known concept regarding the fact that a deer will gnaw off part of its own leg to get out of a trap. It values its life more than its leg, and the pain is negligible if it means they can survive. The Saw films thrived on that same concept: what will you do in order to survive (or will you give up and die)? While I doubt the films contained political subtext intentionally, the fact is that they can be interpreted in that way.

Overall, I think the idea driving Anonymous is good, and there has been very little damage as a direct result of their campaign. Morally speaking, what is being done is wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. However, sometimes a bit of a wrong is required to make things right, I guess.

Bravo bravo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704235)

One of my gripes of anonymous has been use of crappy text to speech software, low quality visual content and lame messaging especially during occupy movement.

At least they put a lot of thought and effort into it. I hope they have some pentagon papers level dirt to share but I doubt it.

Background on the sentencing guidelines (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42704519)

Law student here. The sentencing guidelines have been optional (they used to be mandatory) for awhile now, so it's a bit weird they attacked the commission. Still, judges make the final call these days, although they often rely on the guidelines. Some good background here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines

Let's get real! (1)

CHIT2ME (2667601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42704525)

Hey Anonymous, in this age of cyberwarfare, do you really think that the governments and corporations don't know who you are? It would appear to me that they are just biding their time deciding which of you to "whack" next!!!
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>