You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 05:11:45 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: "Anonymous" Claims to have hacked and thwarted massive GOP vote-fraud attempt  (Read 2640 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Moraline

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.

Offline Cyrano JohnsonTopic starter

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
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.

Offline Cyrano JohnsonTopic starter

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
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.)
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 06:57:10 PM by Cyrano Johnson »

Offline Moraline

This was the most impressive thing in the article...
Quote
Recently, 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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 07:06:43 PM by Moraline »

Online 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.

Offline Cyrano JohnsonTopic starter

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
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?

Quote
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.

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.

Offline Cyrano JohnsonTopic starter

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
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.

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.

Quote
If 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.)
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 07:53:25 PM by Cyrano Johnson »

Offline Lux12

  • Eccentric Occult Glam Agent of The Unknowable.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
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.

Online Callie Del Noire

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.

« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 12:08:35 PM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline Chris Brady

("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.

Offline ulthakptah

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!

Online Callie Del Noire

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.


Offline 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.

Offline Chris Brady

Terrorism has no age limit. There's no "You need to be this tall to be a terrorist" signs.

Offline 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.

Offline Lux12

  • Eccentric Occult Glam Agent of The Unknowable.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
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.

Offline Cyrano JohnsonTopic starter

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
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.

Offline Cyrano JohnsonTopic starter

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
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.

Online Callie Del Noire

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.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 07:59:38 PM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline Chris Brady

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.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 08:54:12 PM by Chris Brady »

Online Callie Del Noire

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.

Offline Chris Brady

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.

Online Callie Del Noire

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.

Offline Lux12

  • Eccentric Occult Glam Agent of The Unknowable.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
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.

Offline Moraline

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

So, any proof of this yet?