Anonops #6: Anonymous en de MO-revoluties

quote:

So You’ve Angered The Hive

Kevin Zeese is an attorney and former candidate for U.S. Senate with a law degree from George Washington University. He contributes to a website attacking the agenda of the national Chamber of Commerce (StopTheChamber.com) and ran for office within the Green Party.

Zeese is concerned that malevolent business interests will have undue influence on elections, due to those interests’ expanding ability to influence elections anonymously. On the phone, he took great pains to differentiate the national hub from your local, garden variety chamber of commerce, which Zeese insists can very well represent the interests of local businesses. The local chambers, he said, had attempted to distance themselves from the national hub, the distinction for him lying in his instinct that the national was undermining decentralization of interests.

I asked him, “So I guess I’d just like to start off by asking you to describe in your own words why you think the Chamber of Commerce apparently has a problem with you or doesn’t want you to speak your mind?”

With this, Zeese laughed with glee, and, catching his breath, said, “Well, that’s a good way of putting it.”

“Well, we have a project called StopTheChamber.com, and it’s been for about a year now heavily focused on the Chamber of Commerce and their activities in both elections and lobbying. The Chamber of Commerce took a very strong right turn during the Bush-Rove era. [Chamber of Commerce President] Tom Donohue is an ally of Karl Rove’s, and he became CEO of the Chamber – and national chamber I’m talking about – and it really took a very strong right turn to just knee-jerk extremism of the Bush-Rove variety.

“And it’s resulted in a lot of turmoil inside the chamber. There have been a number of big corporations that have left the Chamber. There were a number of chapters around the country that have left the Chamber, and so we’ve been adding to that pressure. And we did – we did some aggressive things, like we put out a reward poster for Tom Donohue with a $200,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of Tom Donohue. We published that in a local paper in Washington, D.C., and online.

“And you know, we also – we started to up the ante on this way before HBGary was known and the whole – or whole – that whole story. We started to see lots of death threats and e-mails, you know, threatening us, and there were a whole slew of them. And then we – so we decided that the best way to respond to that was to go public with it. We sent a letter to the Department of Justice and the FBI asking that they investigate the Chamber of Commerce for making these kinds of threats to us. And as soon as went public with it, all of the e-mails stopped.”

Tyler Bass: “Do you know that – do you know that they came from the Chamber? Is that something you can –”

Kevin Zeese: “We don’t know where they came from, but it’s – you know, it was coincidental that (that we ?) were attacking the Chamber, publicly criticizing them, and then, as soon as we went public and raised the issue, all the e-mails suddenly stopped.

“In the HBGary stuff, one of the things that we see these people are capable of doing is claiming fake Internet personalities, you know, that don’t really exist. And I wonder now looking back at it whether or not all of those e-mails were real people or whether they were just, you know –you know, robot personalities that they can turn on and off, because it’s very bizarre that they got turned off immediately. That was just one aspect of things that happened way before we knew about HBGary. And so that I thought that was an interesting little tidbit to add to the story.”

TB: “Yeah, well, on – actually interesting you bring that up – I mean, I’ve always been kind of impression that these personas they create are just sockpuppets, if you will –

KZ: “Right.”

TB: “– accounts, and I do think they represent the action of real people. In fact, one thing we can see from the CEO of HBGary is that he took the time to go on Facebook and make those kinds of accounts, so – and what he would do is he tried to find out who Anonymous was by where people’s friends were located, yadda, yadda, yadda.

“I mean, it all seems kind of Quixotic to me because I think he’s wrong in that they do actually represent a very large number of people who are kind of involved in sort of a SETI-type operation.”

And on this point I bothered to elaborate, explaining that I thought that the head of HBGary was wrong to suspect that Anonymous was such a small group as small as 40. The tool used to take down Visa and Mastercard’s servers for a few hours in the wake of Cablegate’s beginning was the Low Orbit Ion Cannon, a relatively user-friendly version of SETI, and this was the real raw populist muscle of the operation. The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence is a piece of downloadable DYI information processing software that examines loads of radio data from space to attempt to interpret a pattern. In other words, it is the manifestation of the kind of collective effort represented by Anonymous, which HBGary et al sought to cash in on to go after WikiLeaks.

TB: “What I wanted – what really strikes me as ironic about your case is that the Chamber of Commerce seeks personhood for corporations specifically, and they do this because of an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and many people have pointed out their resentment of this. And they desire of rights of privacy and the rights of personhood, you know,and of course the 14th Amendment is how we get landmark privacy cases like Roe v. Wade, which are based on a right of privacy in the 14th Amendment.

“So it’s kind of funny that while they would seek the sort of autonomy for themselves, I – they don’t really – they don’t really seek autonomy for people who they, you know, want to monitor the e-mails, I would presume. I mean, what are your thoughts on that?

KZ: “Well, I do feel that they what they – what they did to – what they were doing to us and what they were threatening to do us was a violation of our legal rights.”

TB: “Oh, definitely.”

KZ: “It was probably – it was probably a violation of criminal laws, you know, cybersecurity laws, as well as traditional torts – you know, the – you know, that they were pursuing; and an invasion of privacy.

“They were talking about following – (inaudible) – members and that kind of thing.

“So whether it’s consistent with their treating corporations – you know, having the equivalent of human rights or not, what they did to us was certainly wrong. And we don’t want to have our political debates about very important issues from climate change to health care to makeup of courts and makeup of legislatures (colluded ?) by this kind of intimidation tactics. I mean, that’s very dangerous for democracy.

“It’s almost a modern version of, you know, Mussolini’s Brown Shirts. You know, they are trying to intimidate us and trying to intimidate journalists and other activists into not being politically active. And we need to take the opposite approach. We need to be encouraging people to be politically active. There are a lot of Americans in this country who are doing their basic – (inaudible) – and it’s not their voting. Voting’s almost a futile effort in our manipulated democracy. There’s so much more that you could be doing, especially if you’re trying to make a better and healthier country.

“And to have the Chamber of Commerce use its tremendous resources, and they have – they do have a lot of resources. They are the corporate bully of Washington, D.C. They spent more than any, any other corporation does. To have them using their tremendous resources to intimidate activists and journalists is really reprehensible. And I’d love the Justice Department to step in. Unfortunately, the Justice Department is complicit in this. So we’re probably not going to get that. You know, we may have to figure out our own way to hold them accountable.”

TB: “Well, as mercenaries now with the times go online – I mean – and I really – I really think that’s not a too strong a word to use for these people – I mean, it’s creating a weird situation for the Justice Department while – where these people are educated,. You know, often – and remember the HBGary Federal is a veterans-run organization. They say it themselves. And these same people received training from the federal government, and they take advantage of that training when it – when it can be used in legal realms. But then it gets applied by private – the private sector, and it – there becomes a market for those same skills intended for government application and the FBI specifically on the free – on the free market. I mean, do you think that’s new? Is that – is that something – a mew trend of thing?”

KZ: “Well, we’re not – we’re not – no, we’re not the only case. You know, there are other cases involving environmental groups where similar kinds of corporate security firms have gone after them, and the veterans who’ve been trained in military activities and retired police who use their law enforcement training are the – are the people who run these kinds of corporations. And, you know, they do things like call the phone company and flash their police badge and give their police number say, tap this phone.

“I mean, so – you know,this is definitely an appropriate use of their training, and what’s really inappropriate in our case, I think, is the fact that the Department of Justice is what made this happening. Bank of America contacted the Department of Justice and asked them about what to do about this WikiLeaks attack on Bank of America.”

TB: “Right, that they thought might come after the hard drive got released that supposedly –“

KZ: “Which still might come. We don’t know yet.”

TB: “Yeah, yeah.”

KZ: “But what’s interesting – what’s interesting about it is that the Department of Justice referred them to Hunton &Williams, this gigantic corporate lobby firm in Washington, D.C. that has all the big business-concentrated corporate capitalist represented there, and said said contact Hunton & Williams. They can solve your problem. They can make your WikiLeaks problem go away.”

TB: Yeah.

KZ. “And that’s when Hunton & Williams contacted HBGary and all the other firms and created this effort, and, you know, the Chamber of Commerce was also represented by Hunton & Williams, and so they, you know, thought this would apply to our activities as well, and so that’s how this happened. So – (inaudible) –“

TB: “Oh, really. Do you think – so excuse me, let me just get something straight. The Justice Department thought the same things that could apply to the Bank of America being –“

KZ: “Hunton & Williams thought –“

TB: “Oh, OK.”

KZ: “– that their other client – the other client, Commerce, would find this of interest and of value. And so then they – then they prepared a project for the Chamber of Commerce. The Department of Justice was very implicated in this, and so then how do we get justice.”

TB: “Yeah, yeah, and –“

KZ: “How do we get the – how do we – how do we get the government to protect our constitutional rights to free speech and the right to assemble and petition our government and be – and be politically active in our country when the law firm that got brought into this was brought into it by the Department of Justice. And really the lawyers in that firm should be losing their bar licenses for engaging in these kinds of conspiracies against political activists.”

TB: “Well, I think that, you know, it’s – it is still – I mean, it still seems to me like it’s worse – I mean, and I would ask you if you think it’s worse that these people go after you, and who else? I mean, I’m going to look at the chart here or something.”

KZ: “Glenn Greenwald.”

TB: “Yeah, well, Greenwald but Greenwald over the WikiLeaks thing separately and for his views about the Chamber. But, I mean, I’m mostly talking about – I’m mostly talking about ThinkProgress here and I’m talking about Brad Blog – ”

KZ: “Right.”

TB: “You know, and specifically those targeting those people who talk about just a wide variety of topics, if – and you know – you know what this stuff is.

“I would – I mean, don’t you think it’s worse that they do that, because I mean at least some of these Anonymous activists are doing something illegal, I mean, some of them presumably, but you guys are just doing nothing even arguably illegal, because, you know, you’re just criticizing.”

KZ: “Right. Oh, we’re definitely not. We’re definitely not doing anything illegal, that for sure. (Inaudible.)

TB: “So, okay, I know that. I know, so I’m – I believe that, so I’m asking you, don’t you think it’s worse that they go after you than some of the Anonymous people who are – I mean, even if you think it’s justified in Anonymous’, you know, justified civil disobedience, you know, or what have you, you know, isn’t it still worse to go after people who aren’t breaking the law?”

KZ: “Of course. If people don’t operate in the law, you know, that’s a different category of who people are. I don’t consider Anonymous to be law breakers. In fact, you know, after this has come out, I feel very much allied with Anonymous. I think Anonymous saved us from what were a great abuse, so I’m actually a pretty big fan of Anonymous after this exposure, especially when I’ve worked with them on some other projects or at least some, you know, small sliver of Operation Anonymous people, who are not involved in hacking but involved in information gathering and trying to stop the NASDAQ exchange from being expanded to allow a Swedish banking family, the Wallenbergs, to get another seat. So I – but, you know, so I’m not going to criticize Anonymous because I think they actually are the heroes in this and that they exposed this plot.”

TB: “Yeah, I mean, and it had nothing to do with, I mean, knocking Anonymous. I mean, I think that – you know, that they have done illegal things that then revealed more illegal things. And, you know, it’s tough because – I mean, for me, it’s tough because, you know, if – even – how bad does the thing that gets uncovered through illegal means have to be to justify it. You know, and that’s, I guess, sort of the question of our times.”

KZ: “Right.”

TB: “I was curious – I wanted to ask you about this because a number of bloggers who were sympathetic for reasons – and not very sympathetic, I might add – to Hunton & Williams and especially HBGary Federal, who then Palantir and the other firm [Berico] started, you know, trying to pin all this stuff on essentially. But, I mean, what – to what degree did – they – you know, they believe this about Brett Kimberlin and his own actions as an individual? I mean, what – to what degree do you think that this was a part of HBGary Federal’s – you know, like, their idea that they could get away with this, you know, why they were above the law? Do you think that –“

KZ: “Well, I think that these big corporations get away with a lot –“

TB: “Yes.”

KZ: “– and that the – that is the normal state of affairs in Washington is for corporate criminals to go free and not be prosecuted. And so far there’s been no criminal action taken against HBGary. HBGary, I think, is losing business, and their CEO has been forced to resign because –“

TB: “Yeah.”

KZ: “– he’s shown himself to be a fool –“

TB: “Right.”

KZ: “– and incompetent. You know, that he has a security firm, and a teenager was able to hack into their website and gather all their e-mails, I don’t think the Department of Defense should trust, someone with those (skills ?) and a firm that allows that kind of person to be their CEO.

“So I think, you know, these guys have gone free so far. Nothing’s been done against Hunton & Williams. No action’s been taken by a bar association. We have filed complaints with the bar association in Washington, D.C. about the lawyers involved, but no action’s been taken yet to hold anybody accountable who’s involved in this essentially cyberconspiracy against political activists and journalists, and that just shows they’re right. They can get away with. And if we – if we didn’t fight back for ourselves, they wouldn’t face any accountability.”

TB: “Yeah, and it’s ironic because, you know, the tactics used by Anonymous in this case, I mean, are – I mean, I don’t mean to equate the intents of one party with the other. One is money and disrespect for the law, and the other is, you know, in some way truth and then also disrespect for the law. But at the same time, they have the same – they have the same idea. And in fact, that’s – that seems to be what set Anonymous off was the fact that – the threat of having their supposed information released, which is of questionable –”

KZ: “Supposedly the information turned out to be inaccurate, and Anonymous released this information on their own –”

TB: “Yeah.”

KZ: “– (inaudible). But I think what’s really interesting about this, what’s really telling about corporate crime in Washington, D.C. and how corporate criminals can act so blatantly is that –”

TB: “And get away with it, apparently.”

KZ: “– major partners in a – one of the biggest corporate lobby law firms in Washington, D.C, Hunton & Williams, openly talked about on the Internet criminal – what I – what looks to me like cybercrimes as well as crimes against individuals who are political activists and journalists. They openly write about it, talk about this stuff like – as if it’s no big deal. They are so – their hubris and their confidence in their control of government is so significant, and of course it should be. The Department of Justice after all brought Hunton & Williams into this, and so they should feel pretty confident.”

TB: “Here’s for example – this is – this is the way you put it. Here’s the way Richard Wyatt him on his biography describes himself, and these are really interesting terms, and because everything you just said is described in his mind, I presume as such, and I quote: ‘He regularly advises the management of public companies and their boards in connection with complex business litigation, strategic reviews of business and transactional alternatives and director compliance with fiduciary duties. He frequently serves as lead counsel in appeals from adverse decisions in matters not originally handled by him or members of his firm.’

“But actually the funny thing is a number of people in the House suspect that in fact he – his law firm is perhaps complicit in such items in violation of U.S. Code such as forgery, mail and wire fraud, fraud and related activity in connection with computers.”

KZ: “Well, yeah, that list of – if you looked at our – at our, you know, Stop The Chamber site and look for these complaints that we filed against Hunton & Williams, you’ll see a long list of crimes that congressmembers are now using for their model, and, you know, there’s a long list of potential crimes here, and it’s a shame that our government is so corrupted by corporate influence that they will not take action against corporate criminals who do this kind of thing to our political process.”

TB: “So do you – do you predict that because this law firm was also involved with trying to hunt Anonymous and people who are obviously strong WikiLeaks, Manning’s, you know, sympathizers that the opposition to those members of Congress will be voiced as in – you know, that they’re traitors just like, you know, Manning and Assange or – you know, who’s not even a citizen, but do you – do you think that could be – that could be echoed back at these individuals in their congressional races? What do you think the larger political consequences will be for the people who seem to see things your way?”

KZ: “Oh, I think that the political – the elected officials who are doing these kind of things come from congressional districts that are pretty, pretty left of center if not progressive and I think that they’ll be secure in their actions. And I think more and more Americans across the political spectrum are seeing the corruption of our government by concentrated corporate capital, and that really is what this is about. Hunton & Williams represent – look at their list of clients. There’ s big energy, there’s pharmaceutical companies, the health insurance companies, big oil, you know, coal, nuclear. It’s all the concentrated corporate interest that dominate Washington, D.C. and prevent us from really solving problems and who create laws that funnel money to the top 1 percent while the rest of us are faced with having, you know, budget debt undermine our basic human needs.

“So I think more and more Americans are getting that and that this case will highlight that. So if they make an issue – I think it – (inaudible) – in particular, the members of Congress will actually succeed from it. I have no doubt, though, that because they do control the corporate media, these corporations will do their best to, you know, brand us all as traitors for supporting WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning or even challenging the, you know, Chamber of Commerce. I mean, the people – the corporate media is not on our side. And thank goodness more and more people get that.

“The corporate media now is at its least credible levels ever in history since it’s been measured, and we see the independent media growing and you see – you know, we’re seeing the democratization of media through social networks, Twitter, Facebook, other outlets where you can put out your own media, and, you know, and more and more transparency of government with groups like WikiLeaks and other groups like Local Leaks, who are able to take information from (citizens ?) who work in government or who work in big business, take it anonymously and get it out to the world.

“And so we’re at a phase of very much a changing media when traditional media is getting weaker, and the independent media is getting stronger, transparency is becoming more likely, and so people in government and business have to be more careful now about their activities because they could be exposed.”

TB: “So I was curious – you kind of hinted at this earlier, but I was interested to know if you ever felt any – you said you wondered if some certain people were, like, sock puppet accounts or were just personas. And, I mean, have you – did you ever feel certain enough about that to know that was sure, or do you know of any intentional information you may have received, or do you suspect anything you’ve written in fact an element that was false that was then planted? I mean, presumably the e-mails would tell us about this.”

KZ: “We’ve never – we’ve never – we’ve never been caught in falsehood that we – you know, on the sock puppet issue, I think it’s remarkable that all of those e-mails stopped as soon as we went public. That just kind of raises questions in my mind and is almost a prima facie case that something was under the control of the Chamber of Commerce, and they stopped it as soon as we went to the FBI and Department of Justice. So that was – it’s too strange to have – you know, we were literally getting hundreds of e-mails, to have them all stop immediately. That’s just too bizarre.

“And as far as disinformation and false information, which is one of their strategies they planned on doing, I don’t think we did receive anything like that. We did receive one in response to our reward poster. We received an anonymous letter from someone who seemed to know a lot about the Chamber of Commerce. It was a like a three or four or maybe even five-page single space letter, and were very careful about it. You know, we said that there’s no way for us to verify who this person is and so we took a cautioned approach. We still – and we didn’t even go public with it. We only sent it to the Department of Justice so they would have it to investigate with. That’s the only thing that comes close, and I’m not even sure that was false, but we didn’t feel confident enough with it to go to the media with it or to the public, and gave it to Department of Justice, FBI for their own investigative purposes.”

TB: “Yeah, indeed, indeed. Well, I think it’s very – you know, I think there are a lot of people who just resent attacks on the chamber who have not the foggiest idea what your complaints about them are, and, you know, I’ll say it: Andrew Breitbart being a prime example.”

KZ: “Well, yeah, there’s a – there’s a – there’s a lot of confusion between the national Chamber of Commerce and the local Chamber of Commerce. The local Chamber of Commerces are totally different from the national. Many of them do very good work as far as promoting local businesses go, promoting local communities, providing information to the consumers and the public about communities, and so that’s a whole different kind of organization that the national Chamber of Commerce, which is, like I said, the corporate bully of Washington, D.C. It spends more than any other corporation and is used as a kind of a way for industries to play two sides.

“For example, in the health insurance debate, the insurance companies would appear with Obama in press conferences being supportive of the bill but they gave tens of millions of dollars to the Chamber of Commerce to attack the bill, so they played both sides that way. The Chamber of Commerce has also done amazing work in warping courts around the country, supreme courts at the state level, where they come in – well, they create – they create a fake organization like Citizens for a Strong Ohio. That’s a real organization that was created, and they spend lots of money in the last few weeks of the campaign attacking a justice who they think is too pro-consumer or too pro-civil rights or too critical of corporations, and then replace that – and then attempt to replace that person with someone who’s a corporate lawyer or a corporate-friendly justice.

“And, you know, they poured lots of money in these races at the last minute, and then justice who’s under attack has no time to raise money to respond, and voters are mislead. And they don’t tell where the money comes for for the Citizens for a Strong Ohio. It took five years of litigation, actually, to find out who Citizens for a Strong Ohio were. It turned out it wasn’t citizens. It was corporations. It was pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, car – you know, automobile companies, bankers, all the, you know, typical big-business interests. I mean, it wasn’t – if instead it had Big Business for a Strong Ohio, people would understand why this progressive or liberal or, you know, pro-consumer justice was being attacked, but because they disguise themselves to fool voters and hide the source of their money, then we have more problems.

“And we also pointed out in this last election that the Chamber of Commerce gets lots of money from foreign corporations, including foreign companies that are controlled by foreign governments, and it goes into their general fund, and that general fund is where they fund their electoral campaign. Now, the chamber claims they have some separation. They haven’t shown anything, haven’t provided any proof of that, and they have a consistent history of misleading the public so you can’t trust them. You need to go in and see it, and we hope that the FBI and the Federal Election Commission go in, conduct an investigation and actually see whether or not the Chamber of Commerce is funding election activity with foreign dollars. If they are, that’s a clear violation of law, and so we need to find out what the story is on that, and we raise those kind of issues, too.

“So if you like your local Chamber of Commerce, that’s – a lot of them have separated from the national because the national is so extreme, that the national has become an extremist, right-wing propaganda corporate outfit and really can’t be trusted with anything it says.”

TB: “I noted at the beginning of this dialogue I wanted to know why you felt like they went after you, right? And you mentioned these – this thing with – of Donohue – you know, saying he wanted information on, you know, illegal acts that he had committed. Now, you – we can contrast that just, for example, with these complaints you have about the Chamber of Commerce able to access electoral influence and mask the influence of either foreign corporations, private parties who do not have necessarily benevolent feelings toward the public or public interest.”

KZ: “Right, right.”

TB: “And so I was wondering how you would feel if there was a group that was – that was kind of like Chamber of Commerce and you couldn’t find out who was funding it, but a group had made the very same offer you did. Now, you did so openly. You offered all this money for this information on Donohue. But what if some organization that was completely blacked out and you had no idea who was sponsoring it wanted to do that to Donohue. Is that – should that be legal?”

KZ: “If they wanted – if they wanted to do that to me here or –“

TB: “Or to Donohue. I mean, if – even if they –“

KZ: “So to Donohue.”

TB: “Yeah, to Donohue. It’s the exact same thing. It’s just they’re targeting Donohue. What do you think?”

KZ: “We are up against a very, very serious threat in this country to our economy and to our democracy. In fact, I think democracy is right now a mirage, and the economy is so warped in favor of the top 1 percent that we have very little power, and I think we have to take very aggressive efforts to try to regain some power to shift the power to the people. I think civil resistance is going to be very important for now and as a way that we show our anger and show them, get organized and demand that the power be shifted to the people. So it’s pretty hard to take much off the table, any nonviolent activity off the table. I think violence would be a mistake, because I think that we’ll lose the support of the public, and the government has much more capability of violence than we do, as do the corporations. And so I don’t think violence is even a smart tactic or one that will be effective. So I think any nonviolent action to try to expose the crimes of these corporations and the complicity of government is on the table, and I think civil resistance needs to be one of our major areas of activity.”

TB: “You know, don’t get me wrong, Corporations are remarkably – some of them, some of them are remarkably violent animals and very, very, very violent, but I also think it’s kind of ironic that these two parties, Anonymous – this legion, in other words – and indeed the Chamber of Commerce seek to influence anonymously. They both try to do this. That’s their point. The Chamber of Commerce is a blunt instrument for raw corporate influence, and Anonymous –“

KZ: “Yeah, I mean, with regard to Anonymous, I mean, I think that we are – there are a lot of people who are afraid in this country to share their political activity.”

TB: “Yeah, and didn’t – and didn’t HBGary Federal say that themselves? One of my favorite quotes out of this whole thing, which you can find in the PowerPoint presentation, and this is in connection with WikiLeaks specifically, but, you know, that people who have professional interest and they have job influence, you know, they’ll be more interested in keeping their nose to the grindstone than, you know, speaking up about this if they have financial interest immediately and professional interest in making them be quiet. And they’re talking about the role of peer pressure, conformity. It’s all very creepy stuff.”

The full, actual quote comes from a Palantir Powerpoint about WikiLeaks supporters: “These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals.” This quote offers great insight into the ideology of the contractors interested in violating the privacy of individuals engaged in unambiguously legal activism. It’s a very cynical attitude and says everything about the kind of people who would be willing to engage in such work on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce or Bank of America for that matter. Although Palantir described these activists as biased, the firm doesn’t insist in that line that the activists’ cause has underlying moral flaw, merely that it does not have an immediate corollary with money acquisition.

KZ: “Well, I mean, so with that kind of power and with the government working for these corporations – as I said, the Department of Justice referred, you know, Bank of America to Hunton & Williams to solve their WikiLeaks problem.”

TB: “Yeah.”

KZ: “You know, so government and corporations working against people that way – they’re creating the need for Anonymous. You know, some people have to be Anonymous to help expose government. Some people have to anonymously provide documents to WikiLeaks or Local Leaks or some other vehicle to – and do it anonymously – to expose crime and corruption in government and big business, and so they’ve created the situation. There’s almost no other way to fight back for many people. I’m very lucky that I can be public and I’m proud to be public and I’m not – this does not intimidate me in any way.”

TB: “Great! I’m glad. I’m glad.”

Zeese acknowledged in so many words what I suspected all along: Despite his rhetoric strongly justifying his rage at HBGary, his level of independent wealth is why he did not meet Palantir’s archetype of the financially malleables, if you will. HBGary’s Federal’s greatest weapon was making you look nuts to your boss and family. Zeese’s relative security compared to most of WikiLeaks supports was why HBGary Federal et al were left utterly terrified of the man.

KZ: “The death threats – the death threats – the death threats didn’t intimidate me. I mean, I just – I mean, I just think we have no choice at this point but to, you know, stand up, and I hope that other people, you know, hope that WikiLeaks is right and that courage is contagious and stand up – stand up and demand it.”

quote:

martinevanhagen martine van hagen
specifieke aanval uit vooral Rusland op websites van de #Wereldomroep #RNW

quote:

jonathanmarks Jonathan Marks
Bearing in mind ICC and Tamoil affairs, DDos attack more likely to be from Libya. #Wereldomroep has never targeted Russia.

quote:

As PlayStation Network tries to get back online, Sony points to Anonymous

The company has written a letter to Congress saying the data theft came as it was defending itself against cyber-attacks

Investigators found a file implicating the "hacktivist" group Anonymous in the security breach that led to the theft of the personal details of more than 100 million online gamers, electronics company Sony has told the US Congress.

In a letter to Congress, Sony said the data theft came at the same time it was defending itself against a cyber-attack from members of Anonymous.

Forensic experts found a file on one of the hacked systems, titled Anonymous, which contained a phrase – "We are legion" – that is sometimes used by the hackers' collective, said Sony chairman Kazuo Hirai in the letter to members of the House of Representatives.

"What is becoming more and more evident is that Sony has been the victim of a very carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated criminal cyber-attack designed to steal personal and credit card information for illegal purposes," he told the House commerce committee, who have launched an inquiry into the matter.

Hirai, chairman of the board of directors of Sony Computer Entertainment America, said Anonymous began denial-of-service attacks, which take servers down by overwhelming them with internet traffic, after the company took action against a hacker in a federal court in San Francisco.

"Just weeks before, several Sony companies had been the target of a large-scale, coordinated denial-of-service attack by the group called Anonymous," said Hirai. "The attacks were coordinated against Sony as a protest against Sony for exercising its rights in a civil action in the United States district court in San Francisco against a hacker."

But he said the mass data theft was launched separately and Sony was not sure whether the two cyber-attacks were co-ordinated.

The company also admitted that it discovered a breach in its PlayStation video game network on 20 April but did not report the matter to US authorities for two days and only informed consumers on 26 April.

"Throughout the process, Sony Network Entertainment America was very concerned that announcing partial or tentative information to consumers could cause confusion and lead them to take unnecessary actions if the information was not fully corroborated by forensic evidence," Hirai wrote.

On Tuesday the company admitted the names, email addresses and phone numbers of 25 million Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) customers were stolen in the attack, which also hit 77 million PlayStation Network gamers. Debit card records of 10,700 customers in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain were compromised in the attack.

"The Sony matter is under active investigation. It involves personnel from the FBI and the justice department who are looking into the matter," US attorney general Eric Holder said. "It is something we are taking extremely seriously."

Anonymous was born out of the influential internet messageboard 4chan, a forum popular with hackers and gamers, in 2003. The group's name is a tribute to 4chan's early days, when any posting to its forums where no name was given was ascribed to Anonymous.

It came to public prominence in December after members briefly brought down MasterCard, Visa and PayPal after those companies cut off financial services to WikiLeaks.

quote:

USAnonymous Anonymous
Please do NOT connect to #AnonOps IRC, it's still compromised by some butthurt fucktard. Use irc.anonworld.net instead. #anonymous

quote:

The hackers hacked: main Anonymous IRC servers invaded

War rages between competing factions within the hacker collective Anonymous after this weekend's drama-filled takeover of the main Anonymous IRC server network. That network, used by Anons to plan and conduct attacks, was taken over by one of its own, an IRC moderator known as "Ryan."

His attack has sparked a debate over the "leadership" of Anonymous.

Hacking the hackers

The main Internet chat servers used by Anonymous have been run by a group called "AnonOps," which provides communications platforms for the group. Pointing IRC clients at anonops.ru or anonops.net would connect anyone to the servers, where they could then join channels like "#OpSony" and participate in various Anon activities.

Though Anonymous is often described as leaderless, factions like AnonOps by necessity have a loose structure; servers must be paid for, domain names must be registered, chat channels must have at least some moderation. Ryan was one of those IRC mods, and this weekend he proceeded with an attack that seized control of the AnonOps servers away from the small cabal of leaders who ran it.

Those leaders include people with handles like "shitstorm," "Nerdo," "blergh," "Power2All," and "Owen"—and if you're paying attention, you'll remember that HBGary Federal's Aaron Barr had fingered Owen as one of three "leaders" of all Anons.

The most popular channel on the old IRC servers now says simply, "anonops dead go home." Ryan also put up a set of chat logs showing Owen and others reacting to the weekend's massive denial of service attacks against AnonOps that culminated in the server takeover. (In the transcript below, "doom" is one of the AnonOps servers.)

Owen -> SmilingDevil: we lost a numbe rof servers last night
SmilingDevil -> owen: we need some more security.
Owen -> SmilingDevil: dude
Owen -> SmilingDevil: it forcved level3 to stop announing a /24
Owen -> SmilingDevil: it was in the gbps range
Owen -> SmilingDevil: doom alone got hit with 1 gb
SmilingDevil -> owen: gigabit or gigabyte?
Owen -> SmilingDevil: all leafs went down
Owen -> SmilingDevil: add it all up
Owen -> SmilingDevil: yeah huge
SmilingDevil -> owen: we need a hidden irc server for the admins.
SmilingDevil -> owen: that only they know about
Owen -> SmilingDevil: um thats called the hub
Owen -> SmilingDevil:
SmilingDevil -> owen: did they take that too?
Owen -> SmilingDevil: but anyhow
Owen -> SmilingDevil: we suffered alot of damage

The "old" leaders released a statement this morning explaining what happened over the weekend and why IRC remained down:

We regret to inform you today that our network has been compromised by a former IRC-operator and fellow helper named "Ryan". He decided that he didn't like the leaderless command structure that AnonOps Network Admins use. So he organized a coup d'etat, with his "friends" at skidsr.us . Using the networks service bot "Zalgo" he scavenged the IP's and passwords of all the network servers (including the hub) and then systematically aimed denial of service attacks at them (which is why the network has been unstable for the past week). Unfortunately he has control of the domain names AnonOps.ru (and possibly AnonOps.net, we don't know at this stage) so we are unable to continue using them.

Not everyone buys the explanation. One Anon pointed out that the Zalgo bot in question is controlled by a user named "E," not by Ryan.

Second, Zalgo can only see chan msgs and msgs to zalgo. The net staff is saying (pretty much) Ryan used Zalgo to steal server passwords (false, I know server protocol) which were tranfered in channels in plain text for the to see (true).

Third: Take everything AnonOps says with a grain of salt. They're putting out lies and not telling the whole story.

Others pointed out that E and Ryan are friends and that E was actually recommended as an op by Ryan.

However it happened, the end result was that Ryan redirected some of the AnonOps domain names he had control over, he led an attack on the IRC servers with denial of service data floods, and he grabbed (and then published) the non-obfuscated IP addresses of everyone connected to the IRC servers. Ryan apparently also gained root access to the Zalgo network services bot, which is presumably how he harvested the non-obfuscated IP addresses, though it's not clear exactly what Zalgo did or how much access it provided Ryan.

Clashing factions

Ryan is associated with 808chan, a 4chan splinter site and apparent home of the recent denial of service attacks on AnonOps. Ryan is "DDoSing everything that he doesn't own with his band of raiders from 808chan," says one Anon.

The 808 brigade apparently valued big botnets, and made users prove their abilities before letting them participate. AnonOps had a more democratic ethos; anyone could show up, configure the Low Orbit Ion Cannon attack tool, and start firing at Sony or others.

"It's an open network where everyone, mostly newfags can join and not have to prove they're able to wield a botnet and can just join a channel of their choosing, fire up LOIC and hit some organization for reasons they believe are right," said one Anon.

Ryan's control of AnonOps extends to some of the actual domain names, including AnonOps.ru. This wasn't a hack; he was actually given administrative control over the domains some time ago by AnonOps leaders.

One Anon explained the reason for this, saying: "As for the domains, they were transferred to Ryan after some of us got vanned so he can keep the network up. What he did certainly wasn't the plan." (Getting "vanned" refers to getting picked up by the police.)

According to another Anon, the current fight was precipitated when Ryan's IRC credential were revoked. "You morons don't realize Ryan IS LEGALLY THE OWNER OF DOMAINS," he wrote. "Nerdo and Owen removed Ryan's oper, Ryan took domains."

Smoky back rooms?

Among Anons arguing over what happened this weekend, the key debate involves the issue of leaders. Anonymous also said it was leaderless and memberless, but is it? The AnonOps statement above claims that Ryan was angry at the "leaderless" structure of the group and wanted to set himself up as king; again, though, not everyone is so sure.

Owen, for instance, helps to shape the conversation and planning in IRC. One Anon complained privately to me that Owen has booted him from the IRC servers—and thus from the place where all the real work against Sony was taking place several weeks ago. "Owen has not only told me that he doesn't really give a shit about freedom of speech, he's also moderately against the action that's being taken on Sony," this Anon said.

Owen and others conduct some of their work in private, invite-only channels, which leads some Anons to suspect that the really important operations and hack attempts are only discussed in a virtual back room. As one Anon put it yesterday:

"Have you ever been in one of their invite-only chats? This is no bullshit. EVERYTHING is decided on them, the eventual course of the operation, the hivemind's target, the channel's topic, everything. Why all this secrecy? These invite-only chats have NO reason to exist. You want to keep out trolls? Turn on mute, and give voice to a few. At least we can see what is being written."

Others were even angrier. A former AnonOps member wrote:

From the fucking beginning (during the hack at Aiplex which started Operation Payback) there has been an secret club, an aristocracy in AnonOps, deciding how operations will play out in invite-only channels.

It's obvious, for they control the topic, the hivemind, the guides, every single thing behind the scenes.

I don't know if the Owen's current bureaucracy is to be trusted, or Ryan's new delegation (from 808chan!) is.

What I do know is that AnonOps no longer has a good reason to exist. The insane amount of power the channel operators wield, and the reputations gained by their NAMES, causes them to become dictator-like, as "power corrupts".

Why did we leave the comforts of the womb of anonymous imageboards, and end up in name-fagging circlejerks controlled only by a few? Why?

Anonymous, this is bullshit. Neither side, neither Ryan's coalition of hackers nor Owen's bureaucracy can be trusted.

Others argued against this equivalence. "Ryan was the dictator, not the one who decided to solve the dictator problem," said one. Another responded, "Lol, how do you know? For all you know, Owen and Ryan are just the classic generals duking out to take over."

For his part, Ryan told the UK's Thinq today that he shared the concerns over private decision making. Owen and the other leaders "crossed the barrier, involving themselves in a leadership role," Ryan said. "There is a hierarchy. All the power, all the DDoS—it's in that [private] channel."

But among those who backed AnonOps, one thing was clear: Ryan needs to get got. Anons quickly embarked on a mission to find Ryan "dox," and quickly unearthed what they said was his full name, his home address (in Wickford, Essex, UK), his phone number, his Skype handle, and his age (17).

On Twitter, some Anons began spreading the word that Ryan had "betrayed" Anonymous, and that he had done so "to mess up all after having stolen PSN credit cards." No evidence for this last assertion was provided.

As the old AnonOps team attempted to get a handle on what had happened—and after they switched to an Indian domain name—they expressed irritation with early media mentions ("fail reporting") of the attack.

"Some 'mainstream' media is calling this the 'insider threat,'" they wrote, "which isn't really a fair representation, AnonOps doesn't have any corporate secrets, its run by the people for the people on a basis of mutual trust. Drama happens almost 24/7, occasionally drama overspills the network.

"Also we must remind the press AnonOps DOES NOT EQUAL Anonymous, saying they are one and/or the same thing in a blog/article just makes you look stupid. AnonOps is just a IRC network and a few other services that ANYONE can use, its not the only place Anonymous gather, and unlikely to be the *last* (see Streisand effect)."

But will the AnonOps leaders ever gather on a forum they don't control? Ryan took great delight in posting the following alleged comment from Owen to another AnonOps leader: "yo odnt honestly think we're goign to some other irc where we have no control do you?"

Of course, Anonymous has always been about drama and "the lulz," so the current confusion may not even bother them that much; this is just par for the course. But it's certainly amusing to others.

"Lmao. You fucking twits can't even keep your shit safe," wrote someone watching the debacle. "This literally made me laugh out loud. Not lol, but laugh. You all are so stupid."

Further reading

Anons commenting on the news (anonnews.org)
Ryan's dump of AnonOps chats (sites.google.com)

quote:

gulthaw | about 4 hours ago | permalink
Is funny how people dares to judge other without having the necessary knowledge to understand them.

How can a capitalist who never thought of comunism except to insult it judge how a comunist will act?

Some of you don't believe in "leaderless" or think "it won't work", let me be the Devil's advocate here (i'm a capitalist and competitive person but my GF believes in comunism).
Leaderless doesn't mean "we all do what we want" means that it can be a leader now for an specified issue but for the next one the leader might be another one.

What I believe it happened here it might be on the edge of paranoia but I believe is accurate.

Lately we've been seeing those laws about how to kill net neutrality and people standing their ground to stop them, so they (the governments) decided to do the same as they did with the weapons of mass destruction, scare people.
That's why Microsoft and Sony got "hacked"; and they expect me to believe it was one of the "bad guys" (probably the same person/group who attacked Anonymous and that person/group is working for one or more governments).
Well, now people is scared... "omfg! My credit card!" "oh noes! I cannot play with my PS3 online!! !!1oneone" and that scared people not only won't protest against laws enforcing the net but they will support them because they were hit once.

Seriously? I know I've watched too many movies and read too many books, but.. seriously? Are you going to fall for this??

I'm not going to defend AnonOps because a) i never spoke with them and b) yes, they seem teenagers with more knowledge I had at their age, but, let them grow and realize how the world works, something good may come from all of this.

And, as a final note a phrase I read long ago:
"This world has a lack of dreamers and too many dream intepreters" (or something like that, english is not my main language )

quote:

A Message To Viacom

Greetings, World. We are Anonymous.
For years we have had to endure Viacom's attempts to strip away the basic rights of the individual. We have been silenced persistently, and consequently the free flow of information has been limited.

Thousands of people have undergone the unfortunate experience of receiving falsely-claimed copyright infringements. For far too long have we shared an enraged commonality in helplessly witnessing totalitarian-like actions taking place. The logging of millions of IP addresses and personal information extends beyond the domain of acceptability. When one's capitalistic agenda interferes with, exploits, and profits through infringing upon an individual's freedom, we, Anonymous, endorse the people's rights and hereby demand a refund.

After Viacom lost their lawsuit against YouTube, they continued to exploit YouTube for money. Viacom's justification of "creator's rights" seems only to mean making money for the sake of money. Their hypocritical action of uploading fake videos to YouTube in order to furnish their own court case is transparent:

"For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately 'roughed up' the videos to make them look stolen or leaked." ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8575666.stm )

"Viacom's request for all YouTube's records of log-in names and email and IP addresses was granted by a US district court in a preliminary hearing..." ( http://www.digitalspy.co.(...)eased-to-viacom.html )

Anonymous demands from Viacom a public press release to admit and apologize for the fraud and crimes that they have commited. Anonymous also demands that Viacom allows everyone thoughout the internet full rights to be able to express themselves. Lastly, we, the citizens of the world, demand that Viacom stops their attempts to gather personally identifying information such as IP's, which are of no relevance to them.

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.

quote:

LET'S BE CLEAR, WE ARE LEGION, BUT IT WASN'T US. YOU ARE INCOMPETENT SONY

Last month, an unknown party managed to break into Sony's servers and acquired millions of customer records including credit card numbers. Insomuch as that this incident occurred in the midst of Anonymous' OpSony, by which participants engaged in several of our standard information war procedures against the corporation and its executives, Sony and other parties have come to blame Anonymous for the heist. Today, in a letter directed to members of Congress involved in an inquiry into the situation, Sony claimed to have discovered a file on its servers, presumably left by the thieves in question, entitled "Anonymous" and containing a fragment of our slogan, "We are Legion." In response, we would like to raise the following points:
1. Anonymous has never been known to have engaged in credit card theft.
2. Many of our corporate and governmental adversaries, on the other hand, have been known to have lied to the public about Anonymous and about their own activities. HBGary, for instance, was caught lying a number of times to the press, to the public, and to Anonymous itself (in this phone call, for instance, ( http://tinyurl.com/...) CEO Aaron Barr makes a number of untrue statements regarding the intent of his "research," claiming for instance that he never tried to sell the information to the FBI when e-mails acquired soon showed that he had been set to do just that; executive Karen Burke was also caught lying to Bloomberg about having not seen an incriminating e-mail that she had in fact replied to just a few days before). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce lied about not having seen the criminal proposal created by them for Team Themis; Palantir lied about not having any idea what their employees were up to; Berico publicly denounced a plan that they had actively engaged in creating; etc. There is no corporation in existence will choose the truth when lies are more convenient.
3. To the contrary, Anonymous is an ironically transparent movement that allows reporters in to our operating channels to observe us at work and which has been extraordinarily candid with the press when commenting on our own activities, which is why reporters prefer to talk to us for truthful accounts of the situation rather than go to our degenerate enemies to be lied to.
4. Whoever broke into Sony's servers to steal the credit card info and left a document blaming Anonymous clearly wanted Anonymous to be blamed for the most significant digital theft in history. No one who is actually associated with our movement would do something that would prompt a massive law enforcement response. On the other hand, a group of standard online thieves would have every reason to frame Anonymous in order to put law enforcement off the track. The framing of others for crimes has been a common practice throughout history.
5. It should be remembered that several federal contractors such as HBGary and Palantir have been caught planning a variety of unethical and potentially criminal conspiracies by which to discredit the enemies of their clients. This is not a theory - this is a fact that has been reported at great length by dozens of journalists with major publications. Insomuch as that our enemies have either engaged in or planned to engage in false flag efforts, it should not be surprising that many of the journalists who have covered us, who know who we are and what motivates us - and who have alternatively seen the monstrous behavior of those large and "respectable" firms that are all too happy to throw aside common decency at the behest of such clients as Bank of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - also have their suspicions that some capable party performed this operation as a means by which to do great damage to Anonymous in the public eye. Those who consider such a prospect to be somehow unlikely are advised to read about what was proposed by Team Themis in their efforts to destroy Wikileaks, and should otherwise take a few minutes to learn about COINTELPRO and other admitted practices by the U.S. intelligence community. The fact is that Anonymous has brought a great deal of discomfort to powerful entities such as Booz Allen Hamilton, Palantir, and much of the federal government; the Justice Department in particular is likely unhappy that our efforts revealed that it was they themselves who recommended the now-discredited "law firm" Hunton & Williams to Bank of America in order that the latter might better be able to fight back against Wikileaks. All of this is now public record, and anyone who finds it laughable that those or other entities may have again engaged in tactics that they are known to have engaged in in the past is not qualified to comment on the situation.
Anonymous will continue its work in support of transparency and individual liberty; our adversaries will continue their work in support of secrecy and control. The FBI will continue to investigate us for crimes of civil disobediance while continuing to ignore the crimes planned by major corporations with which they are in league.
We do not forget, even if others fail to remember.
We not forgive, even if others forgive our enemies for those things for which we are attacked.
We are legion, and will remain so no matter how many of our participants are raided by armed agents of a broken system.
We are Anonymous.

quote:

http://www.thinq.co.uk/20(...)er-group-speaks-out/

A self-styled Anonymous "splinter group" that has seized control of two sites used by the 'hacktivist' collective to organise Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks and other operations have revealed their intentions in an exclusive interview with thinq_.

'Ryan', a former member of network staff on AnonOps.net and AnonOps.ru, says that he and and a number of other disgruntled members seized control of the sites because they believed AnonOps had become too centralised.

They accuse a small elite within the organisation of "behind-the-scenes string-pulling", abusing their power by setting themselves up in a leadership role.

The group condemns 'Owen', a key figure in this leadership cabal, as being "incredibly incompetent", stating that had been "abusing the fact that people use his platform".

Owen and others, the group said, had "crossed the barrier, involving themselves in a leadership role," adding: "That's not how things were set up."

Debunking as "bullshit" the idea that AnonOps was a democratic, leaderless organisation, the group talked of a "cult of personality", telling thinq_ that a self-appointed leadership of ten users called the shots from a dedicated IRC channel.

"There is a hierarchy. All the power, all the DDoS - it's in that channel."

Ryan admits that he had been responsible for leaking the IP addresses of users of the sites when he seized control, describing the move as "regrettable but necessary". The sites were a cornerstone of AnonOps' operational capabilities, providing what users believed was a secure communications channel for Anonymous operations via IRC chat.

"The only way to make things safe is to make users aware how insecure it is," claims Ryan - ironically echoing his adversaries' advice to steer clear of the unprotected sites.

The group blames the group's centralisation on the publicity given to Anonymous's exploits, which include high-profile attacks in support of whistle-blowing site WikiLeaks, and the targeting of anti-piracy groups under the banner of Operation Payback.

"The media is part of the problem. It's why AnonOps still exists," they told thinq_.

According to Ryan and two other former supporters, 'Garrett' and 'Chippy1337', the publicity-hungry cabal behind AnonOps had begun engaging in operations simply to grab headlines. They accuse the group's leaders of "using the PR machine that is AnonOps" to feed their own egos.

"Their power was wasted on stupid operations," thinq_ was told.

So which operations, did the group think, had been a step too far?

"I was never a fan of OpSony, for instance," replied Garrett.

The splinter group questioned the motives of Owen and other figures within this leadership, claiming: "They just like seeing things destroyed."

Asked directly whether users identifying themselves with Anonymous were behind the recent hacking of the Sony's PlayStation Network, in which more than 100 million users' details were stolen, the group was more circumspect.

"I don't believe Anonymous people were responsible for the Sony PSN outage," said Garrett, but added: "Even if they were, it was planned behind closed doors. No one's going to admit to that. It's way too hardcore. The FBI will be involved. I doubt if that will ever come out."

The aim of this splinter group, said Ryan, was to destroy AnonOps in its current form, aiming for it to be replaced by ad hoc protests on single issues.

"I hope that people will spread out... Users should find new groups, new causes," the group said.

And, if their claims are to be believed, they may be successful.

Ryan claims the new splinter faction holds "the majority of the firepower" used in earlier attacks such as the DDoS unleashed against Sony.

"We can't imagine them doing any damage any more," he said.

If the group has its way, this may be the end for AnonOps in its current form, but they predict a new, more vibrant life for Anonymous - one against which the big businesses and governments that provoke its ire will find it even more difficult to protect themselves.

"You can't kill something like that," Ryan said. "More groups will pop up. Probably many different ones. AnonOps just won't be the flagship."

Read more: http://www.thinq.co.uk/20(...)s-out/#ixzz1LykJdgr0

quote:

Alarm over EU 'Great Firewall' proposal


Broadband providers have voiced alarm over an EU proposal to create a “Great Firewall of Europe” by blocking “illicit” web material at the borders of the bloc.

Anti-censorship campaigners compared the plan to China’s notorious system for controlling citizens’ access to blogs, news websites and social networking services.

The proposal emerged an obscure meeting of the Council of the European Union’s Law Enforcement Work Party (LEWP), a forum for cooperation on issues such as counter terrorism, customs and fraud.

“The Presidency of the LEWP presented its intention to propose concrete measures towards creating a single secure European cyberspace,” according to brief minutes of the meeting.

The secure European cyberspace would have a "virtual Schengen border", it adds, referring to the treaty that allows freedom of movement within the EU but imposes controls on entry to the bloc.

There would also be “virtual access points" whereby “the Internet Service Providers would block illicit contents on the basis of the EU ‘black-list’”, the proposal says.

The closed meeting was held in February, but the minutes have only gained attention this week after being published online.

Malcolm Hutty, head of public affairs at LINX, a cooperative of British ISPs, said the plan appeared “ill thought-out” and “confused”.

“We take the view that network level filtering of the type proposed has been proven ineffective,” he said.

Broadband providers say that illegal content should be removed at the source by cooperation between police and web hosting firms because network blocking can easily be circumvented.

Glyn Moody, a prominent advocate of openness online, said: “They only have to look at how porous the Great Firewall of China is - something that has been created and honed by experts with huge resources.

“They seem completely oblivious of the implications of their daft plan: the imposition of Europe-wide censorship.”

Hungary currently holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, but attempts to contact its spokesmen in Brussels for more information, such as the definition of “illicit contents”, were unsuccessful.

A spokesman for the Council of the European Union itself meanwhile said nobody was available to discuss the issue because officials are on holiday.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 mei 2011 21:03 schreef Disana het volgende:
Assange heeft een vredesprijs gekregen die eerder Mandela en de Dalai Lama te beurt viel:

http://www.volkskrant.nl/(...)-en-Dalai-Lama.dhtml

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 mei 2011 21:42 schreef Disana het volgende:

[..]

Ongehoord. Waar moeten wij nou van afgeschermd worden, propaganda?

quote:

AJStream The Stream
On #AJStream: We're talking about the work of #Anonymous @BiellaColeman & @haroonmeer. Watch live at 1930 GMT at stream.aljazeera.com.
26 seconds ago

quote:

Prolific "spokesman" for Anonymous leaves the hacker group

In one year, Barrett Brown made himself into one of the best-known public faces of the hacker collective Anonymous—and now he's stepping away from the group.

"There's little quality control in a movement like that, which was not a huge problem when the emphasis was on assisting with North African revolutions and those who came on board thus tended to be of a certain sort," he told Ars this week.

"But as things like OpSony arise, you attract a lot of people whose interest is in fucking with video game companies—which is not to say that there aren't legitimate reasons for OpSony or that the majority involved aren't quality people, but to the extent that someone sits things out when we're working to promote liberty and fight dictatorships but then hops on board when we start going after an electronics firm that's perpetrated far lesser villainy, one has to question those peoples' priorities."

Public face

Brown has been an unofficial "spokesman" of sorts for Anonymous, a go-to guy whenever a news outlet needed a real name or a face to put on TV. He and another Anon, Gregg Housh, have become public symbols of a movement that largely cloaks itself in anonymity, hiding behind Guy Fawkes masks and Internet Relay Chat handles.

How many other Anons would sit for a lengthy profile of the sort featured in the March issue of Dallas' D magazine that talks about Brown's heroin use, his sexual escapades, and the reason he wears cowboy boots—while running a photo of him slumped in a chair beneath a stuffed bobcat? And that featured descriptions like this?

The 378-square-foot efficiency was dimly lit and ill-kept. Dirty dishes were piled high in the sink. A taxidermied bobcat lay on the kitchen counter. Brown is an inveterate smoker—Marlboro 100’s, weed, whatever is at hand—and the place smelled like it. An overflowing ashtray sat on his work table, which stood just a few feet from his bed in the apartment’s “living room.” Two green plastic patio chairs faced the desk. I left with the feeling that I needed a bath.

Brown got publicly involved in Anonymous in early 2010, when the group launched Operation Titstorm and targeted the Australian government's Web censorship proposals (which included a plan to ban depictions of nude small-breasted women who might resemble underage girls—hence the name of the operation). Brown wrote a piece for the Huffington Post at the time in which he saw the Anonymous attack as a new kind of "revolutionary engine" that might one day remake the world and even threaten the concept of the nation-state.

"Having taken a long interest in the subculture from which Anonymous is derived and the new communicative structures that make it possible, I am now certain that this phenomenon is among the most important and under-reported social developments to have occurred in decades, and that the development in question promises to threaten the institution of the nation-state and perhaps even someday replace it as the world's most fundamental and relevant method of human organization," he wrote.

To help create this world of spontaneous communities linked only by shared goals and not by geography or ethnicity, Brown decided to help Anonymous in a public fashion after being contacted by Housh. He had a front-row seat for the late 2010 Anonymous ops targeting Middle Eastern regimes. "What I saw and did during the next few weeks convinced me that these sorts of efforts can and should be used to channel dissatisfaction with injustice into concrete action in opposition to such things," he told me.

But it wasn't the Anonymous Middle East ops that captured the world's attention; it was the group's pro-WikiLeaks attacks on financial firms that had cut off the site's access to donations which led to international headlines. Anonymous staged denial of service attacks on MasterCard, Visa, and others—and the FBI got involved, eventually executing 40 search warrants against the group.

Meanwhile, HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr decided to "unmask" the supposed leadership of Anonymous, only to see the group break into his company's computers, make off with his private e-mails, and expose some terribly shady goings-on to the light of day. Barr eventually resigned his job—but Anonymous gained even more press. Brown even took the lead role in a national NBC News segment on Anonymous earlier this year, one that called him "an underground commander in a new kind of war." (The stuffed bobcat is visible in the background.)

The HBGary operation showed Brown that he had been right. "The HBGary operation demonstrated that small teams of individuals with relevant skills can do a great deal of damage to institutions that are otherwise effectively invincible by virtue of their position within the system," he told me.

"The fact that the FBI had just raided 40 alleged participants in DDoS attacks in conjunction with a sweeping international investigation into Anonymous even as Team Themis' various criminal conspiracies were facilitated by the Justice Department and have thus far been ignored by 'law enforcement,' meanwhile, has reaffirmed my belief that the rule of law is void."

Creating "pursuants"

What's going to replace the rule of law? Private bands of citizens engaged in a "massive campaign of investigation and exposure." While Anonymous could do some of the work, the group seems unable to shake its juvenile rhetoric, its thirst for "lulz," and its reputation for drama. These traits were certainly on display in the last few weeks when an Anon known as "Ryan" took over the main AnonOps IRC servers and posted chat logs and IP addresses of users—temporarily depriving Anonymous of its main gathering point. Ryan said his actions were taken to overthrow the dictators off in invite-only chat rooms, making plans and acting like the group's leaders. Was this true? And does the truth even matter?

For Brown, Anonymous has become a distraction to the work he really wants to accomplish. "To the extent one works out of AnonOps or some other venue of that sort, one has to deal with those people, as well as with a lot of frankly disturbed hacker types like Ryan—who continues to fuck with my projects," he said. So Brown and some like-minded associates will do some of the same work, but under a different banner—Brown's existing "Project PM."

What is Project PM? According Brown's description of the project, it's "a pursuant—an autonomous online entity composed of individuals who have come together to conduct activism in pursuit of a particular end and who wish to do so by the most efficient means available." The first big project is OpMetalGear, which has set up a wiki to collate information on defense and intelligence contracting, especially as it related to the "persona management" software sought by the US government and discussed in some of the HBGary Federal e-mails.

To some, Brown looks like a spotlight-hogging "namefag"; a Radio Free Europe blogger recently suggested that Brown could be the next Julian Assange. "There are clear parallels with Assange," wrote Luke Allnutt on May 18. "A broken home, interrupted education, a fierce independent streak, a conspiratorial mind, and a clear desire to be in the limelight. They both like to see themselves (in Assange's case, with some justification) as plucky digital outlaws taking on the Internet’s evil corporate and state overlords."

Critics of Anonymous routinely single out Brown for criticism due to his public identity. "Barrett Brown, you are one dumb son of a bitch. Ballsy, but dumb," said one critic on Twitter, who complained that Brown was little more than an apologist for a gang of crooks. Conservative blogger Robert Stacy McCain wants to know if the FBI is watching Brown, "and if they’re not already, shouldn’t they?"

Others suggest that Anons don't like him much, or perhaps worry about what he knows. Earlier this week, security firm Kaspersky Labs noted Brown's departure, saying, "Anonymous observers, who asked to remain anonymous themselves, said there's reason to believe that Brown is being cut off by core Anonymous members worried about having their identities exposed, or wary of Brown's focus on government wrongdoing."

As for Brown, he plans to keep working "with people who are themselves still very much associated with Anonymous and AnonOps in particular," but he won't be operating under the "Anonymous" banner any longer.

Funding this kind of work can be a challenge. When he announced Project PM last year, Brown asked readers for donations.

"You’ll also get a lot of bang for your buck in terms of the marginal utility of your patronage, as I am extraordinarily frugal, even Spartan insomuch as that I spend a lot of time sitting around without a shirt on, or pants, or more than one sock," he wrote. "I smoke Top rolling tobacco, which goes for around $3 a package and is sold in many prison commissaries. I eat oatmeal for breakfast rather than endangered condor eggs dipped in wasabi-infused veal compote like Christopher Hitchens does. Anyway, the tobacco is necessary for my work."

Thanks to his heightened profile, Brown did secure writing gigs with both The Guardian newspaper in the UK and our sister publication Vanity Fair here in the US that bring in a bit of cash.

And he's now working on pieces for Al-Jazeera that discuss what he has learned from OpMetalGear. Brown also has hopes for a film script. "It's a sort of dark political comedy about a guy who secretly ends up as a speechwriter for both candidates in the same campaign," he said.

quote:

Operation Metal Gear: Apple

Apple and HBGary Federal:

Apple is an entity of interest by virtue of conversations between that company and HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr involving the company’s interest in participating with a “team” for the purpose of competing for surveillance contracts put out by the U.S. government. This “team” would have centered around the federal contractor TASC as well as a smaller firm called Mantech. Apple is also under investigation by Congress due to revelations that the iPhone collects geographical locations of users.

This email was sent by Aaron Barr to his various partners in the intelligence industry:

(Sent to TASC execs Al Pisani, Chris Clair, Ray Heider, Irene Harris, and John Lovegrove)
“I had a very good conversation with Apple today on the phone. I am going to meet with them in person tomorrow. They are interested in being on the team. I am going to do a little research but the more I think about this model I think we also need to look for a smaller social networking company, maybe like a foursquare and also a social gaming company maybe like zynga, gameloft, etc. Just a thought.
Aaron “

quote:

http://english.aljazeera.(...)151917634659824.html

Anonymous and the Arab uprisings

The cyberactivists discuss their work and the broader global push for freedom of speech and freedom from oppression.

quote:

Facebook founder Zuckerberg tells G8 summit: don't regulate the web


Mark Zuckerberg and Google chief Eric Schmidt give lukewarm reception to Sarkozy's plan for 'premature regulation'

Leading figures in the internet revolution have warned world political leaders against trying to regulate the web, telling them to leave alone a process that has flourished without government interference.

Facebook's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, wearing a rare suit and tie, told leaders at the G8 that excessive regulation would not work, and called for more investment in high-speed technology.

G8 leaders agreed a communique in which they welcomed the role of the net in providing economic growth and personal freedom, but also warned of its threat to privacy and intellectual property.

The wording reflects tensions within the G8 over French president Nicolas Sarkozy's determination to push regulation of the net up the political agenda, including protection of intellectual property. He staged a two-day conference on the issue in Paris ahead of the summit, and five of the leading participants, including Zuckerberg reported on their deliberations.

"This has been almost unanimous that we should provide free, open access to the internet to everyone on earth," said Maurice Levy of the Publicis advertising group, who hosted Wednesday's e-G8 meeting in Paris.

"Yes, we should protect intellectual property; no, we shouldn't create a situation by which the internet cannot grow and cannot develop," Levy said, warning that failure to provide high-speed internet could "create a collapse of the system".

"There is a serious need to invest heavily on high-speed ADSL and other high speed systems," Levy said, adding that the summit of internet leaders would become an annual event. Problems linked to privacy, piracy, pornography, copyrights and security through technological innovation, the executives said.

David Cameron's aides are privately sceptical that the Sarkozy initiative is going to lead anywhere.

Eric Schmidt, the executive director of Google, said: "The internet is the greatest force for good in the world. We should not have premature regulation ahead of innovation. There are technical solutions to these problems. Sarkozy sent a strong message he'd like to work with us on these issues."

Schmidt said governments shouldn't charge telecommunication companies excessively high prices for bandwidth, saying the higher costs will be passed on to customers, holding back economic growth.

He also slammed regimes such as in Iran and Syria for cutting internet access in the face of pro-democracy protests, describing it as a "terrible mistake".

Zuckerberg said: "I'm happy to play any role they ask me to play … the internet is really a powerful force for giving people a voice."Zuckerberg has been challenging Sarkozy all week, and said: "People tell me: 'It's great you played such a big role in the Arab spring', but it's also kind of scary because you enable all this sharing and collect information on people," said Zuckerberg.

"But it's hard to have one without the other. You can't isolate some things you like about the internet, and control other things you don't."

Schmidt said Iranian and Syrian measures to cut off Internet access were "desperate moves".

"It is a terrible mistake for them to do so. Among other things, it completely screws up the economy, communications, the exchange of goods, the electronic commerce, the flow of information into these countries … it's not a good idea to shut down the internet in your country," he said.

Many internet bosses believe governments are going to be unable technically let alone legally to control the internet as technology develops.

quote:

Cameron and Sarkozy plan Libya visit as G8 says Gaddafi must go

French president lets Benghazi plan slip at summit where leading countries will say Libyan ruler must step down

[...]

The communique also discusses the role of the internet, nuclear safety after the Fukushima disaster and concedes that the G8 nations have collectively failed to meet their pledges on aid to Africa.

Regarding the internet, the communique treads a fine line between advocating governmental regulation and allowing so-called "wild west" free rein.

It states: "The effective protection of personal data and individual privacy on the internet is essential to earn users' trust.

"It is a matter for all stakeholders: the users who need to be better aware of their responsibility when placing personal data on the internet, the service providers who store and process this data, and governments and regulators who must ensure the effectiveness of this protection."

It adds: "We encourage the development of common approaches taking into account national legal frameworks, based on fundamental rights and that protect personal data, whilst allowing the legal transfer of data.

"We will also work towards developing an environment in which children can safely use the internet by improving children's internet literacy including risk awareness, and encouraging adequate parental controls consistent with the freedom of expression."

In response to the demands of internet companies to be left alone, the communique adds: "Flexibility and transparency have to be maintained in order to adapt to the fast pace of technological and business developments and uses. Governments have a key role to play in this model."
[...]

quote:

Twitter unmasks anonymous British user in landmark legal battle

California court forces site to reveal personal details of user accused of libelling local authority in north-east England

Twitter has been forced to hand over the personal details of a British user in a libel battle that could have huge implications for free speech on the web.

The social network has passed the name, email address and telephone number of a south Tyneside councillor accused of libelling the local authority via a series of anonymous Twitter accounts. South Tyneside council took the legal fight to the superior court of California, which ordered Twitter, based in San Francisco, to hand over the user's private details.

It is believed to be the first time Twitter has bowed to legal pressure to identify anonymous users and comes amid a huge row over privacy and free speech online.

Ryan Giggs, the Manchester United footballer named as being the plaintiff in a gagging order preventing reporting of an alleged affair with a reality TV model, is separately attempting to unmask Twitter users accused of revealing details of the privacy injunction.

However, Giggs brought the lawsuit at the high court in London and the move to use California courts is likely to be seen as a landmark moment in the internet privacy battle.

Ahmed Khan, the south Tyneside councillor accused of being the author of the pseudonymous Twitter accounts, described the council's move as "Orwellian". Khan received an email from Twitter earlier this month informing him that the site had handed over his personal information. He denies being the author of the allegedly defamatory material.

"It is like something out of 1984," Khan told the Guardian. "If a council can take this kind of action against one of its own councillors simply because they don't like what I say, what hope is there for freedom of speech or privacy?"

Khan said the information Twitter handed over was "just a great long list of numbers". The subpeona ordered Twitter to hand over 30 pieces of information relating to several Twitter accounts, including @fatcouncillor and @ahmedkhan01.

"I don't fully understand it but it all relates to my Twitter account and it not only breaches my human rights, but it potentially breaches the human rights of anyone who has ever sent me a message on Twitter.

"A number of whistleblowers have sent me private messages, exposing any wrongdoing in the council, and the authority knows this."

He added: "I was never even told they were taking this case to court in California. The first I heard was when Twitter contacted me. I had just 14 days to defend the case and I was expected to fly 6,000 miles and hire my own lawyer – all at my expense.

"Even if they unmask this blogger, what does the council hope to achieve ? The person or persons concerned is simply likely to declare bankruptcy and the council won't recover any money it has spent."

A spokesman for south Tyneside council said the legal action was brought by the authority's previous chief executive, but has "continued with the full support" of the current head.

He added: "The council has a duty of care to protect its employees and as this blog contains damaging claims about council officers, legal action is being taken to identify those responsible."

Twitter had not returned a request to comment at time of publication.

quote:

http://anonops.blogspot.com/
Online mischief makers Anonymous are set to launch a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on the website of the US Chamber of Commerce later today, in retaliation for the organisation's support for the draft PROTECT IP Act.

The 'hacktivist' collective announced it would launch the DDoS attack at 20:00 Eastern Standard Time.

If passed, the 'Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property' Act - 'PROTECT IP', for short - will allow US Justice Department officials to force ISPs and search engines to block access to web sites it believes to be infringing US copyright laws, and would require other companies such as advertising network providers and payment processors to cease doing business with them.

Anonymous said that the US Chamber of Commerce is being targeted for its support for the bill, which critics accuse of having disastrous implications for freedom of speech and the open exchange of information online.

The collective issued the following call to arms yesterday:

"As pioneers of this new world, it’s our duty to resist and fight those who attempt to stop us. Whether you’re a journalist or blogger, or a participant of Anonymous, or the activists on the ground who protest against these corporate thugs and oppressive regimes and risk everything for freedom of information and speech, we are all in this battle together and we have a responsibility to protect our civil liberties.

"This attack tomorrow will send yet another message to the pigs that run the state that we will not be another cog in the f****d up clock that these corporate entities attempt to preserve through their political puppets in Washington.

"This is our world now and we will fight for it. Take it or leave it."

Message From Anonymous ( IP ACT)

quote:

Cyberaanval is in VS voortaan oorlogshandeling

Het Pentagon kan grote cyberaanvallen door andere landen voortaan classificeren als oorlogshandelingen. Dat meldde de krant The Wall Street Journal vandaag op basis van bronnen binnen het Amerikaanse ministerie van Defensie.

De nieuwe zienswijze staat in de eerste formele cyberstrategie van het Pentagon. De strategie maakt de weg vrij om op een cyberaanval te reageren met conventionele militaire middelen. Niet-geheime onderdelen van het plan worden naar verwachting volgende maand gepubliceerd.

Afschrikken
Door cyberaanvallen te zien als oorlogshandelingen proberen de Verenigde Staten hackende buitenlandse mogendheden af te schrikken. 'Als jij ons elektriciteitsnet afsluit, schieten wij misschien een raket in je schoorsteen', aldus een militaire functionaris in The Wall Straat Journal.

Volgens het Pentagon zijn cyberaanvallen net zo gevaarlijk voor bijvoorbeeld kernreactoren, pijpleidingen en metrostelsels zijn als een traditioneel vijandelijk leger.

China
De afgelopen tijd kregen de VS en andere landen te maken met cyberaanvallen. Afgelopen weekeinde sloeg het Amerikaanse bedrijf Lockheed Martin naar eigen zeggen een krachtige cyberaanval af. De onderneming is een van de belangrijkste leveranciers van informatietechnologie, vliegtuigen en wapensystemen van de Amerikaanse overheid. Hackers wisten in 2008 in ten minste één belangrijk Amerikaans militair computersysteem te infiltreren.

Sommigen beschuldigen China van zulk soort internetaanvallen.
Vorig jaar werd het Iraanse kernprogramma getroffen door de computerworm Stuxnet. Vaak blijft onduidelijk wie er achter de cyberaanval zat.

quote:

“The Global Strike calls for a series of disruptions in the North American version of the Arab Revolution that was spawned in January starting with Egypt’s revolt against Hosni Mubarark’s thirty years of dictatorship. ”

Read more about Global Strike Planned 2011 - Politicol News on:
http://www.politicolnews.(...)&utm_campaign=share&