"Anonymous" Claims to have hacked and thwarted massive GOP vote-fraud attempt

Started by Cyrano Johnson, November 17, 2012, 10:35:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cyrano Johnson

The story is here.

There are reasons not to automatically accept this, beyond the obvious. Many states tacked away from electronic voting machines in the wake of the extremely suspicious debacle of Ohio 2004. So the question remains: were there enough electronic votes in play -- or was there some electronic counting mechanism upstream of enough paper ballots -- for the ORCA scheme alleged herein to work?

I don't know. OTOH I'm not inclined to dismiss it out of hand. For one thing, the GOP spent enough time leading up to the elections bleating about supposed (and to all appearances fictional) Democratic "vote fraud" to raise the suspicion that they were trying to preemptively divert attention from their own activities. For another, the "Anonymous" narrative fits well with the palpable shock shown by GOP operatives, Rove in particular, at the actual results... as if they deeply believed they had it utterly sown up and something had broken spectacularly behind the scenes.

Plenty of fodder, draw your own conclusions. I'm staying agnostic for now. If the story does prove to be true, it's quite troubling if it means elections are largely subject to the whims of competing teams of hackers.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Lux12

You know it really wouldn't surprise me.I'm not ready to accept this statement as truth, but with some of the things that have been happening in the world lately, it would not surprise me.

Oniya

I know we had paper ballots here.  The little Oni got to see me be very careful about filling in the blocks completely as one of the two acceptable ways of marking it. (An X was the minimum required)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Beguile's Mistress

We've been using electronic voting machines for a while now.  The setup allows for some issues with privacy but I do trust them.

Ironwolf85

I don't think they were actually going to tamper, but were musing over it, then again Rove's reaction to not winning ohio was interisting.
this is likely going to be conspericy fodder for years to come.
Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, love...
debate any other aspect of my faith these are the heavenly virtues. this flawed mortal is going to try to adhere to them.

Culture: the ability to carve an intricate and beautiful bowl from the skull of a fallen enemy.
Civilization: the ability to put that psycho in prision for killing people.

Stattick

Wow. I don't know whether this is true, or just a publicity stunt by Anonymous. But if it turns out to be true, I hope that Anonymous turns over their evidence to the DOJ, FBI, and other authorities, so Rove and culpable parties can be prosecuted.

Oh, and if this is true, Thank You Anonymous.
O/O   A/A

Lux12

Ah that would be lovely.There's nothing I would like more than for Bush and all his buddies from the previous administration to finally be put on trial for their crimes against the people and convicted.

FireflyWhisper

It seems like if it were true, they'd have already exposed them with direct evidence, considering they claim to have hacked their way into the system in advance.

Oniya

Quote from: FireflyWhisper on November 19, 2012, 11:58:30 PM
It seems like if it were true, they'd have already exposed them with direct evidence, considering they claim to have hacked their way into the system in advance.

Except that would be working for 'The Man' (*heavy eyeroll*) and how could they trust an obviously corrupt government with such clear evidence of its own corruption?

Don't get me wrong - if they actually shot this stuff down, I'd raise the individuals responsible for the fraud prevention up on my shoulders and parade them around town.  (Cheap, I know, but I'm on a budget!)  Unfortunately, 'Anonymous' has this annoying tendency of spouting off this Great Thing We've DoneTM with absolutely nothing to show in Exhibit A.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Lux12

That is part of anonymous's appeal in a way. They gain influence by building their own mystery no reference to Sarah McLachlan intended. I'm not certain that we even know what anonymous's goals are or even if they have any, but their secrets give them a sort of power.

Chris Brady

Honestly, given Anonymous, I'd be suspect of this.  Until actual proof from a proper agency (yes, yes, I know it would require the Man, that nebulous organization marginalizing your life right now!) appears, I have my doubts this isn't like some terrorist organization taking claim for an act that they didn't do, just for the notoriety it would bring them,
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Lux12

Quote from: Chris Brady on November 20, 2012, 12:28:36 AM
Honestly, given Anonymous, I'd be suspect of this.  Until actual proof from a proper agency (yes, yes, I know it would require the Man, that nebulous organization marginalizing your life right now!) appears, I have my doubts this isn't like some terrorist organization taking claim for an act that they didn't do, just for the notoriety it would bring them,

That would not surprise me. The net like everywhere else, is filled with attention seekers. Even this grants them a certain power though even if they can't exactly set national policy.

Serephino

I would say the shock of Obama winning was more likely because of the huge amounts of money spent.  Karl Rove had that Crossroads Super Pac that was making Democrats nervous.  My inbox was flooded with emails from Democratic candidates pointing out how much more their opponents were spending, and if I didn't donate, they could lose.  The Republicans were airing ads like crazy a few days before the election here because of that belief of repeating a lie over and over again enough will get people to believe it.  I swear, no matter what channel I, Cartoon Network being the exception, every add for like 4 days was political.  I'm sure Ohio got it worse.  That, and poor Rove knew that if Romney lost he'd have lots of very pissed off rich people to deal with.  That was more likely why he freaked out like he did.

Callie Del Noire

I agree with Serephino. Rove failed to perform big time.  As for the app crash first question I asked when I heard about it was: "What sorta system load did they beta test it with?"

If the events happened the way Anon said, we would have seen proof pop up with the announcement.

Vekseid

There are a lot of security issues and potential fraud incidents involving electronic voting and crap like this. However, statistics suggests that it doesn't occur at scale, if it is happening. That there is insufficient oversight that this is possible is a shame, but crafting too big of a conspiracy means just that - all it takes is two people willing to speak up and suddenly you have a giant fucking problem.

Chris Brady

Quote from: Vekseid on November 21, 2012, 11:47:44 AM
There are a lot of security issues and potential fraud incidents involving electronic voting and crap like this. However, statistics suggests that it doesn't occur at scale, if it is happening. That there is insufficient oversight that this is possible is a shame, but crafting too big of a conspiracy means just that - all it takes is two people willing to speak up and suddenly you have a giant fucking problem.
Even if they are lying through their teeth.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Vekseid on November 21, 2012, 11:47:44 AMThere are a lot of security issues and potential fraud incidents involving electronic voting and crap like this. However, statistics suggests that it doesn't occur at scale, if it is happening. That there is insufficient oversight that this is possible is a shame, but crafting too big of a conspiracy means just that - all it takes is two people willing to speak up and suddenly you have a giant fucking problem.

In fairness to Anonymous, the vote-rigging in Ohio in 2004 (alleged to be a parallel to this attempt) did not require too big of a conspiracy - and all it took was offing a key witness (okay, a key witness "having a(n) [convenient] accident") to put the major players out of reach of effective prosecution. Successful medium-scale conspiracies are actually quite common, they're largely how organized crime and espionage work at all. (To hear some people tell it, no pyramid scheme or unethical clandestine project in history should ever have worked because all it would take was two people willing to speak about it. In reality it's not quite that simple. The Tuskegee syphilis experiments ran for four decades before they acquired even one whistleblower; the Church of Scientology has successfully weathered multiple attempts to expose the fraudulence of its practices and its abuse of many adherents.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Moraline

My issue with this topic is that I don't trust Anonymous to tell me anything.

I think Anonymous is nothing more then a juvenile fraternity styled joke.

Anonymous lacks any form of credibility and is an internet meme at this point.


Chris Brady

Anon is a title that any cyber terrorist group likes to use when claiming that their screwing over of everyone is for the 'good' of the 'little guy'.  When in reality, all it does is hurt us.

Because who do you think pays for the extra security that Anon's little escapades cause?  The customer.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Lux12

Perhaps their only real goal is to troll the world while dressing it up as some noble endeavor?

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Moraline on November 22, 2012, 10:34:10 AM
My issue with this topic is that I don't trust Anonymous to tell me anything.

I think Anonymous is nothing more then a juvenile fraternity styled joke.

Anonymous lacks any form of credibility and is an internet meme at this point.

I think it's wise not to necessarily believe everything Anonymous claims. Nor do I necessarily agree with their politics or ethics; essentially they reflect hacker culture, which by and large is pitched to the maturity level of 4chan, and that shows (they can ditch the Guy Fawkes masks any time now, really).

However, it seems to me to vastly overshoot the mark to claim they "lack any form of credibility." In terms of demonstrated technical capability and the various attacks and actions they've been associated with, Anonymous most certainly have achieved considerable credibility over the past decade -- enough so to draw serious law enforcement counter-campaigns. (To what extent that capability has been impacted by the arrests of close to a hundred Anonymous hackers worldwide in the past couple of years, though, I don't know. I have no good sense of how large a pool of "hacktivists" they really have to draw on.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Chris Brady on November 22, 2012, 01:41:41 PMBecause who do you think pays for the extra security that Anon's little escapades cause?  The customer.

Meh. I'm willing to bet that botnets and malware unrelated to Anonymous play a way larger role in driving up security costs than the handful of spectacular instances of "hacktivism."
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Chris Brady

Actually no, Hacktivism, as you call it, do drive up he costs.  Because the affected companies often make a big show of it.  And how they now have to 'change' their infrastructure to a more secure one, and whatever excuse they think their customer base will buy into.

In the end, groups that use the Anon label are helping the big companies more than they doing any good.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Chris Brady on November 22, 2012, 04:21:35 PMActually no, Hacktivism, as you call it, do drive up he costs.  Because the affected companies often make a big show of it.

Sure, but this tells us little about what excuses the companies would use absent the activities of Anonymous. I can pretty much guarantee you -- based on the behaviour of companies from long before any such thing as "Anonymous" existed -- they'd still be screwing the customer as hard as they can get away with, "hacktivists" or no. ("Hacktivism" is a better term than "cyber-terrorism." Anonymous do not have an extensive track record of blowing people up or kidnapping them.)

Whether Anonymous is actually "helping" the big corporate machine would have more to do with the outcome of their specific attacks. Which brings us back to the main story of this thread: because if they did in fact forestall another GOP-run robbers' paradise in the White House, that's a politically significant mark on their ledger in favour of helping -- or at least mitigating harm to* -- "the little guy." It would of course still be sobering from "the little guy's" perspective if a bunch of hacker twerps had proved to be decisive in such a way.

* Notwithstanding far-left perspectives that want to see the GOP and Dems as essentially interchangeable. The Bush presidency disproved this pretty conclusively for anyone who was still in doubt, or is not in denial.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

ulthakptah

Anonymous does not exist. They are not a group. Saying Anonymous is a group is like saying vegans are a group. Sure while these people may like and do the same things, they do not gather in shadowy cabals and make sinister plots. The person who is claiming to be from Anonymous probably just worked alone, or maybe with a close friend. The closest thing to communicating as a group Anonymous does is talk big on 4chan.

Moraline

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on November 22, 2012, 04:09:07 PM
I think it's wise not to necessarily believe everything Anonymous claims. Nor do I necessarily agree with their politics or ethics; essentially they reflect hacker culture, which by and large is pitched to the maturity level of 4chan, and that shows (they can ditch the Guy Fawkes masks any time now, really).

However, it seems to me to vastly overshoot the mark to claim they "lack any form of credibility." In terms of demonstrated technical capability and the various attacks and actions they've been associated with, Anonymous most certainly have achieved considerable credibility over the past decade -- enough so to draw serious law enforcement counter-campaigns. (To what extent that capability has been impacted by the arrests of close to a hundred Anonymous hackers worldwide in the past couple of years, though, I don't know. I have no good sense of how large a pool of "hacktivists" they really have to draw on.)

I simply have never seen anything from them that promotes credibility.

I certainly don't know of everything they have done but all I have seen from them so far is proverbial lip flapping.

I've never seen them produce any evidence of any kind that backed any claim that they've ever made. They just jump on the band wagon of whatever latest political or social trend is steam rolling along and talk a lot of shit - which does draw some additional publicity and good on them for that but it doesn't give them any credibility.

I also don't consider sending out DDoS attacks as any form of credibility on issues. It just shows that they know how to utilize computer viruses. I wrote my first virus when I was 12. Color me not impressed. Big difference between dropping a few email viruses or spamming a DDoS attack then there is when you are actually hacking a corporate or government database. It's like watching kids post videos in youtube about computer hacking that show them sending out a ping test. It's laughable.

Credibility on an issue means proving that they have evidence. It means being a reliable source of information - not just spouting opinions.

Could their actually be voting fraud? I have no doubt of it.
Does Anonymous have any evidence of it? I doubt it very much. If they did, it would be circumstantial at best.

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: ulthakptah on November 22, 2012, 06:28:28 PM
Anonymous does not exist. They are not a group.

Well, Anonymous is a label pretty much anyone could adopt, but things like organized DDoS attacks presumably require cooperation among groups of hackers operating under that rubric. That Anonymous is not a single institution isn't necessarily the same thing as its just being a bunch of kids talking big on 4chan; if the latter was true, Interpol's interest would no doubt be a lot less keen.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Moraline on November 22, 2012, 06:46:30 PM
I simply have never seen anything from them that promotes credibility.

Their Vikileaks campaign skewering online surveillance promoter Vic Toews was, I thought, pretty impressive. And quite funny. Whichever group of "Anonymous" hackers that was.

(As for their posting "backup evidence," the evidence of their activities is typically speaking in the results. They have not produced dossiers or affidavits or anything, since obviously that would defeat the purpose of being "anonymous" and at any rate would be a foreign habit to hacker culture. But enough of their claimed activities have coincided with actual effects that would fit those claims for Anonymous to have a credible reputation as a technical threat.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Moraline

This was the most impressive thing in the article...
QuoteRecently, they grabbed headlines when they published a recording of a confidential call between FBI agents and London detectives in which the law-enforcement agents discuss action they are taking against hacking.

The rest of the article was all unsubstantiated information. Until proven it shows us nothing.

I did find the video nice and inspiring though. The Canadian maple leaf was a nice touch.

I'll give them a bit of credibility for the call recording. Got any more? I certainly would be open to learning more about them. PM me if you have anything.

They still also haven't given any evidence about the so called "voting fraud."

*quick edit*  The issue isn't technical credibility - (Although DDoS attacks are really easy to do and almost anyone can do it.)  That's not a credibility thing, that's a skill thing.  Credibility is about being believed and having evidence that's hard proof. I don't care if it's counter to their culture. If they can't prove it then it means absolutely nothing.

Callie Del Noire

When one of these Anon 'hackivist teams' produce data on the news desk of the New York Times, London Times, ect.. I'll buy into more of their claims. I worry about one point a LOT of them agree with Julian Assange on.. that data MUST be free. Wikileaks got a lot of folks in trouble, and I'm willing to bet in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border it got folks KILLED.

Meanwhile Julian hides in a consulate and dodges something that could have been handled early and with little publicity.

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on November 22, 2012, 07:12:06 PM
When one of these Anon 'hackivist teams' produce data on the news desk of the New York Times, London Times, ect.

Not quite sure what this means?

QuoteI worry about one point a LOT of them agree with Julian Assange on.. that data MUST be free. Wikileaks got a lot of folks in trouble, and I'm willing to bet in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border it got folks KILLED.

One can agree or disagree with Assange's philosophy and quibble with what he decided to include or exclude, but I would note in fairness that he was never guilty of just publishing a bunch of free data without vetting it or inquiring about whether it would endanger people. I don't know whether a lot of Anonymous hackers actually agree with him or not.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Moraline on November 22, 2012, 07:03:03 PMThe issue isn't technical credibility - (Although DDoS attacks are really easy to do and almost anyone can do it.)  That's not a credibility thing, that's a skill thing.

I'd say it's a credibility thing. If you're going to claim to be able to do a thing, or to have done a thing, having demonstrated the ability to accomplish it is an important factor in having those claims believed or regarded as plausible.

QuoteIf they can't prove it then it means absolutely nothing.

I don't think this is true, actually. If the effects of your acts speak for themselves, that in itself can establish credibility without one's having to publish dossiers of "hard evidence." Results in fact speak louder than words for many people, and how Anonymous has reached its current prominence in the first place; with enough correlation between claims and apparently effects, the objection that they haven't technically "provided hard proof" of being tied to this or that act becomes in practical terms much weaker. Moreover, if the thing you're claiming to have accomplished is not technically speaking legal, demanding "hard proof" for a claim about it to mean anything is a totally unrealistic standard of evidence that amounts to "I'll only believe them when they effectively turn themselves over to the police."

(If you're looking for more info about Anonymous' past actions, most of what I'd send you would just come from links to their WikiPedia entry, so I'd suggest just having a browse there when you have a chance.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Lux12

The more I think about it, Anonymous is probably less of an organization and more of a phenomenon that people have latched onto for whatever reason and have created the illusion of an organized and united front for. Even if there is a core of people that do form a cohesive organization, they seem to thrive on confusion and the chaos of the internet. Hell spreading confusion and utter madness may be their entire agenda and they're just a small circle of mega trolls.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on November 22, 2012, 07:38:05 PM
Not quite sure what this means?

It means till they supply facts to a credible media group who can verify their claims and/or a government agency confirms what they say happened, I ain't buying.

Quote
One can agree or disagree with Assange's philosophy and quibble with what he decided to include or exclude, but I would note in fairness that he was never guilty of just publishing a bunch of free data without vetting it or inquiring about whether it would endanger people. I don't know whether a lot of Anonymous hackers actually agree with him or not.

He released cables with names, dates and locations. The people in them were put in harms way. Several Anon attacks were in 'defense' of his right to publish those memoes as he saw fit. Both the New York Times and the London paper he worked with pushed to redact names, times and places. He cavalierly pushed them aside.  He 'edited' HOURS of footage into a 20 minute incitement of the US army's policy in the gulf with the gun camera footage he released. He's run roughshod over anyone and everyone who tried to moderate his impulse within and outside of Wikileaks. And for all his pushing for 'openness' you can't get him to release DICK about how he spent the money that Wikileaks puts out. His privacy and the rest of the worlds are two different things.

And most tellingly in my opinion is how he 'supported' Bradley Manning, his source. At the height of the Wikileaks release of Manning's data, he was raking in THOUSANDS a day to support Manning supposedly but Manning's lawyers got DICK till the mentioned that he had not given them anything for Manning up to that point.


Chris Brady

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on November 22, 2012, 04:37:31 PM("Hacktivism" is a better term than "cyber-terrorism." Anonymous do not have an extensive track record of blowing people up or kidnapping them.)

Cyber-terrorism is virus attacks, DDOS and other ways to 'blow up' servers.  Anyone who uses the Anon label IS a CYBER-terrorist.  And only help the big guys because to mitigate costs of any damage (real or imagined) will trickle down to the rest of us, in some way or another.  Usually by increase in fees, or lowering services.  But in the end, it really does nothing.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

ulthakptah

Quote from: Chris Brady on November 23, 2012, 06:18:09 PM
Cyber-terrorism is virus attacks, DDOS and other ways to 'blow up' servers.  Anyone who uses the Anon label IS a CYBER-terrorist.  And only help the big guys because to mitigate costs of any damage (real or imagined) will trickle down to the rest of us, in some way or another.  Usually by increase in fees, or lowering services.  But in the end, it really does nothing.
Yep, I know the worst case of "CYBER-terrorist" I know of is when Anon got together to prank phone call Rosetta Stone and Gamestop asking for English to Klingon lessons, and the video game Battle Toads. Those sick sadistic bastards!

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: ulthakptah on November 23, 2012, 06:30:29 PM
Yep, I know the worst case of "CYBER-terrorist" I know of is when Anon got together to prank phone call Rosetta Stone and Gamestop asking for English to Klingon lessons, and the video game Battle Toads. Those sick sadistic bastards!

So their DDOS attacks on businesses, infiltration of secure networks (up to and including the Pentagon) and the invasion of privacy of anyone they dislike. (regardless of who they are.. people do have a right to privacy).. and unleashing some of the things they do on the net has been very very dangerous.


ulthakptah

My point was more that anonymous isn't a bunch of terrorist, they are just 14 year olds who do things they think are cool. Any idiot can DDOS, the internet tells you how, the internet tell you how to do all sorts of things like that. My point is do they do it for a reason? Nope, they do it because you can't catch them, nana nana boo boo stick your head in doo doo.

Chris Brady

Terrorism has no age limit. There's no "You need to be this tall to be a terrorist" signs.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

ulthakptah

Not the point I was trying to make. I'm not saying that they can't be terrorist because they are too young. I'm saying they aren't terrorists because they aren't fucking scary. Oh no! they voted Rick Astly to have the best act of all time in 2008, the horror!

Anonymous doesn't do anything scary, they just get credit for doing scary things. The only elections they have the power to mess with is online polls.

Lux12

Quote from: ulthakptah on November 23, 2012, 07:39:41 PM
Not the point I was trying to make. I'm not saying that they can't be terrorist because they are too young. I'm saying they aren't terrorists because they aren't fucking scary. Oh no! they voted Rick Astly to have the best act of all time in 2008, the horror!

Anonymous doesn't do anything scary, they just get credit for doing scary things. The only elections they have the power to mess with is online polls.

True.They really aren't terrorists since they haven't really done anything that endangers others lives or hurts anyone.They aren't all that intimidating and at best they seem to be a minor annoyance.

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Chris Brady on November 23, 2012, 06:18:09 PM
Cyber-terrorism is virus attacks, DDOS and other ways to 'blow up' servers. 

Not buying it, sorry. I don't much care for the term "terrorism" period -- it's one of those ready ways of dehumanizing and cutting off critical thought about vast categories of activity -- but if it's going to be used it should at least apply to things that inspire actual terror in people. Using it in this manner cheapens an already problematic term into total meaninglessness.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on November 23, 2012, 12:28:57 AM
It means till they supply facts to a credible media group who can verify their claims and/or a government agency confirms what they say happened, I ain't buying.

He released cables with names, dates and locations. The people in them were put in harms way. Several Anon attacks were in 'defense' of his right to publish those memoes as he saw fit. Both the New York Times and the London paper he worked with pushed to redact names, times and places. He cavalierly pushed them aside.

Actually this is false, or at least I think it is. AFAIK he refused to accept the NY Times' standards for redaction. That's not the same thing as not redacting anything; a great deal of the content WikiLeaks released viz. Iraq or Afghanistan was in fact redacted. Just not on the US government's terms.

I'm not aware of any provable instances of people having been put in harms way by WikiLeaks either, but it is theoretically possible. It is arguably, however, even more problematic for outlets like the Times to have lost any sense of themselves as entities distinct from the government, to the point where they barely even bother pretending anymore. I found Bill Keller's open cravenness on this front pretty shocking. I confess I do have trouble understanding people who are upset with Assange but not at the deterioration of the American media into -- at least on national security issues -- a glitzier version of Pravda, a trend which has greatly served to obfuscate the truths underlying foreign policy debates.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on November 24, 2012, 01:51:52 PM
Actually this is false, or at least I think it is. AFAIK he refused to accept the NY Times' standards for redaction. That's not the same thing as not redacting anything; a great deal of the content WikiLeaks released viz. Iraq or Afghanistan was in fact redacted. Just not on the US government's terms.

I'm not aware of any provable instances of people having been put in harms way by WikiLeaks either, but it is theoretically possible. It is arguably, however, even more problematic for outlets like the Times to have lost any sense of themselves as entities distinct from the government, to the point where they barely even bother pretending anymore. I found Bill Keller's open cravenness on this front pretty shocking. I confess I do have trouble understanding people who are upset with Assange but not at the deterioration of the American media into -- at least on national security issues -- a glitzier version of Pravda, a trend which has greatly served to obfuscate the truths underlying foreign policy debates.

I have repeatedly made my scorn of the US media known. It isn't concerned with reporting events but with rating points. Newspapers are used by the corporations as talking points to by and large are dying due to a lack of adapting iwth the times.

That being said...

Quote from: Open Secrets by the New York Times Staff
"By this time my paper's relationship with our source had gone from wary to hostile. I talked to Assange by phone a few times and heard out his complaints. He was angry that we declined to link our online coverage of the war logs to the WikiLeaks Web site, a decision we made because we feared - rightly, as it turned out - that their trove would contain the names of the low-level informants  and make them Taliban targets. "Where's the respect?" he demanded. "Where's the respect?" Another time he called me to tell how much he disliked our profile of Bradley Manning, the Army private suspected of being the source of Wikileaks' most startling revelations."

Emphasis mine.

That's from the book on the incident, written by the New York Times.. who took a pretty heavy beating for first teaming up with Assange and then 'betraying' him when he wanted to go further than the staff, as well as the staff of the Guardians and Der Speigel over his lack of empathy over those he was revealing.

Assange is a narcissistic ego maniac. A well spoken one. Look at how many of his staff have left since the warlogs and diplomatic cables were leaked. They cite 'differences over site management' while he claimed "disloyalty, insubordination and destabilization". A lot of these issues dealt with his lack of empathy for innocenent bystanders listed in the documents, failure to observe security measures for their sources.

He didn't just refuse to accept the NY Times' standard for protecting sources and bystanders.. but ANY. Aside, of course anything that protects HIS privacy.

As for 'provable' evidence. What would you like? A email from Tailban for leaving in the name of villages and provinces that the memoes addressed? It doesn't take NAMES of the people to thin things down.

Do we have the names of any of the people that were killed as a result of Valerie Plames revelation as a No Offical Cover (NOC) agent? No. Because the regimes that benefited quietly 'vanished' anyone that they suspected of talking to her after her arrival in their country. People died.. don't assume because no one has listed names and places that they don't exist. Tragedy isn't as well published revealing folk's dirty laundry and it could be argued that the Times, Guardian, Der Speigel and other papers were accessories in the act.


Also.. care to explain how the Airforce's JDAM operator/user's manual is 'Politically relevant'. That is pure intelligence material.. nothing political in how to install the guidance package on a bomb.

I resprect Assange at the start, he came out and spoke for the fallen, oppressed and betrayed. Now.. he hides behind diplomatic barriers, refuses to accept responsibility for any action that could be construed as negative and betrays almost every journalistic ethic.

Chris Brady

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on November 24, 2012, 01:37:45 PM
Not buying it, sorry. I don't much care for the term "terrorism" period -- it's one of those ready ways of dehumanizing and cutting off critical thought about vast categories of activity -- but if it's going to be used it should at least apply to things that inspire actual terror in people. Using it in this manner cheapens an already problematic term into total meaninglessness.

And losing access to money on a credit card, and various identification doesn't scare you?

It seriously scares the living shit out of me.

The amount of damage someone can do with just your credit card can literally ruin you for life.  There was a reason, back when I was a tech, I had to give a LEGAL disclaimer about what we were going to charge, and how.  And you know what?  People were like, "Yeah, whatever here."  But the moment we asked for their E-mail address, they shut down, immediately worried about losing their stuff.

Oh sure, cancelling the card can stop some of the loss of money, but they will have all the other details you likely up in when you got yourself a credit card.  Bank information, SIN (Assuming your society/Government uses that), birth date, location.  There's a scary amount of information that credit cards and other pieces of personal data that hackers LOVE to get their hands on, even just a single password and they can get into your computer.  And heaven forbid if it has sensitive information.

Just imagine the steps you had to go through to get that Credit Card, and all the information you willingly gave out, and now imagine that information in the hands of young punks who think they know better than you.

And now that these little hackers have your personal information, they're going to sell it to anyone who wants it.  From harmless spam advertisers to scam artists to others who may want to target you for some reason.

Also, Callie, from my reading, Assange is coming off as a typical psychopathic individual.  I honestly never respected him for what he did with his 'wikileaks' crap.

At first it was like he was reporting stuff from 'water cooler' conversations.  You know, you and a couple of the guys/gals bitching about how Todd in Marketing is a total brown noser and the only way he got his job was because he was fucking the boss, or whatever.  Seems harmless, right?  Well, odds are, Todd would find out and because he's in a higher position than you, all of you are now in the unemployment line.  Why?  Oh, probably because of some sort of BS about how untrustworthy you were.

And all because you disliked him.  Not that it affected your job, or that you were a bad worker, just because you had an opinion about some other guy in the office.

Now, let's take it up to the national scale.  You are a diplomat, for Country A, and you have to deal with that slime ball from Country B.  Now, you do not like having to deal with this Slime Ball, he always makes you feel sick, but to make sure that your country can get some exports, and pay off it's workers, you need to deal with him.  Suddenly, one of your personal, INTERNAL E-mails you sent to another co-worker, which admittedly was not very professional, gets leaked out and Slime Ball gets his hands on it.

Well, now, your country has been screwed.  Likely, you're off that job, and with an official reprimand, and likely no longer trusted with high risk jobs.  And even worse, because Slime Ball KNOWS about it, he now has more leverage to actually screw your country out of more, because all he has to do is point out how some in the Country A's diplomatic office aren't very professional, and he has no idea if this new guy has been 'tainted'.  Or whatever bullshit.

WE DO NOT NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING.

And what gets me is how Assange's group managed to get some of this rather sensitive information?  Not all of it was rampant on the internet.  A lot of it wouldn't even be allowed outside the building's intranet.

Assange is a traitor and a spy, and I'm surprised no one's tried to have him executed for it.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Chris Brady on November 24, 2012, 08:52:32 PM
Assange is a traitor and a spy, and I'm surprised no one's tried to have him executed for it.

There is an argument for recruiting for espionage, commercial and/or political, but he's not a traitor.

He's not a US citizen.. so his acts against the United States MIGHT qualify as espionage but fail to meet the criteria of treason.

Now, I'm not sure about the things he's done inside the UK, since he IS an Australian citizen. That is an entirely different bag of worms.

Chris Brady

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on November 24, 2012, 09:18:55 PM
There is an argument for recruiting for espionage, commercial and/or political, but he's not a traitor.

He's not a US citizen.. so his acts against the United States MIGHT qualify as espionage but fail to meet the criteria of treason.

Now, I'm not sure about the things he's done inside the UK, since he IS an Australian citizen. That is an entirely different bag of worms.

OK, he does treasonous acts, or rather acts that WOULD be treason were he a member of the countries he's been targeting, but to MY MIND (opinion) the man is a world spy with an psychopathic sense of entitlement.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Chris Brady on November 24, 2012, 09:22:09 PM
OK, he does treasonous acts, or rather acts that WOULD be treason were he a member of the countries he's been targeting, but to MY MIND (opinion) the man is a world spy with an psychopathic sense of entitlement.

I'm not arguing with you.. I personally think he suborned folks like poor Private Manning, then left them out in the field to rot. If Manning's lawyers hadn't spoken up when they did..he'd have continued to get tens of thousands a day for helping Manning and not given a single Euro to the kid.

Manning committed treason, but I think that if you come and use someone as a source..then promise to back him.. you damn well do it. Of course Assange doesn't' see anyone but himself as real. Witness the folks whose financial bond just got taken by the UK courts as he hides in the Ecuadorian Consulate.

Lux12

Part of the problem with dealing with cyber crimes and cyber terrorism is that we lack sufficient procedures for dealing with it.It's also a fairly new stomping ground for those with malicious intents so the science of dealing with them is in it's infancy as well.

Moraline

Quote"Anonymous" Claims to have hacked and thwarted massive GOP vote-fraud attempt

So, any proof of this yet?


Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Chris Brady on November 24, 2012, 08:52:32 PMAnd losing access to money on a credit card, and various identification doesn't scare you?

Aside from this being a non-sequitur as regards "hacktivism," no, being a potential victim of fraud does not remotely scare me (or I think you'll find, most people) the way that being bombed or kidnapped does, not at all. Terrorism is a term used (or that should only be used) to denote mortal threat: not inconvenience, nor even serious inconvenience. (This is not to deny that identity theft is a serious problem. It's just that not every serious thing is "terrorism." The hysterical misuse of a word renders it useless, and that's what you are doing.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Skynet on November 26, 2012, 07:12:59 PMKind of worried that Karl Rove and Fox News will use this to "prove" that Obama won due to voter fraud.

"They committed voter fraud by disabling our attempt at voter fraud" would be pretty tough spin even for them. I wouldn't put the attempt past them, mind you, but I wouldn't be worried about it as something that could actually gain much traction.

Hi Moraline: I'll keep an eye out for updates and post them to this thread as they come. I wouldn't expect too much to happen in the short term; any really news-worthy confirmation or debunking would require some investigation time.

Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Skynet

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on November 26, 2012, 07:25:45 PM
"They committed voter fraud by disabling our attempt at voter fraud" would be pretty tough spin even for them. I wouldn't put the attempt past them, mind you, but I wouldn't be worried about it as something that could actually gain much traction.

I'm literate in Fox News lingo, so I'll know how they'll spin it!

These "hacktivists, influenced by the Obama administration, erased hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of legitimate Romney votes and claimed that they were 'converted' votes!  These liberals have relentlessly attacked us for voter fraud, yet they're the ones doing it all along!"

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Skynet on November 26, 2012, 07:40:05 PM
I'm literate in Fox News lingo, so I'll know how they'll spin it!

These "hacktivists, influenced by the Obama administration, erased hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of legitimate Romney votes and claimed that they were 'converted' votes!  These liberals have relentlessly attacked us for voter fraud, yet they're the ones doing it all along!"

Yep, that sounds about right.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

ulthakptah

Anonymous is not credited with any identity theft to my knowledge. I'm not even sure why that came up. Identity theft isn't even terrorism; it's theft. They aren't trying to coerce people; they just want money. Not to mention identity theft didn't even start on the Internet. It started from wanting to make use of the credit cards pickpockets kept getting.

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: ulthakptah on November 26, 2012, 08:24:08 PM
Anonymous is not credited with any identity theft to my knowledge. I'm not even sure why that came up.

Me neither.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences