Anonops #10: Stop SOPA

twitter:

BarrettBrownLOL twitterde op zaterdag 21-01-2012 om 19:10:40 #Anonops IRC server packed beyond precedent with angry hackers and activists, all thanks to #SOPA and #FBI reageer retweet

quote:

Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood

After the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect Intellectual Property Act were shelved on Friday, some Web sites and venture capitalists went on the offensive against the people and companies behind the controversial piracy bills.

Y Combinator, an early stage investment company, announced on its Web site that it planned to finance start-up companies that would go after Hollywood and the movie industry.

Referring to Hollywood, Y Combinator wrote: ”The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they could do a lot of damage to civil liberties and the world economy on the way down. It would therefore be a good thing if competitors hastened their demise.”

The blog post, which was titled “Kill Hollywood,” also offered advice to start-ups and entrepreneurs who wanted to help to hasten its demise. Suggestions included developing start-ups that created new ways to produce and distribute shows, and games that were similar to traditional shows but were more interactive.

Marco Arment, a developer and the founder of Instapaper, wrote a similar post on his Web site, stating that people needed to fight back against Hollywood after it managed to get the piracy bills into Congress.

“Such ridiculous, destructive bills should never even pass committee review,” Mr. Arment wrote. The real problem, he added, is “the MPAA’s buying power in Congress,” a reference to the Motion Picture Association of America. “This is a campaign finance problem.”

quote:

MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought

Reinforcing the fact that Chris Dodd really does not get what's happening, and showing just how disgustingly corrupt the MPAA relationship is with politicians, Chris Dodd went on Fox News to explicitly threaten politicians who accept MPAA campaign donations that they'd better pass Hollywood's favorite legislation... or else:

. "Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"

This certainly follows what many people assumed was happening, and fits with the anonymous comments from studio execs that they will stop contributing to Obama, but to be so blatant about this kind of corruption and money-for-laws politics in the face of an extremely angry public is a really, really, really tone deaf response from Dodd.

It shows, yet again, that he just doesn't get it. People were protesting not just because of the content of these bills, but because of the corrupt process of big industries like Dodd's "buying" politicians and "buying" laws. To then come out and make that threat explicit isn't a way to fix things or win back the public. It's just going to get them more upset, and to recognize just how corrupt this process is. If Dodd, as he said in yesterday's NY Times, really wanted to turn things around and come to a more reasonable result, this is exactly how not to do it. It shows, yet again, a DC-insider's mindset. He used Fox News to try to "send a message" to politicians. But the internet already sent a much louder message... and, even worse for Dodd, he bizarrely sent his message in a way that everyone who's already fed up with this kind of corruption can see it too. It really makes you wonder what he's thinking and how someone so incompetent at this could keep his job.

The MPAA doesn't need a DC insider explicitly demanding the right to buy laws and buy politicians. The MPAA needs a reformer, one who helps guide Hollywood into the opportunities of a new market place. The MPAA needs someone who actually understands the internet, and helps lead the studios forward. That's apparently not Chris Dodd.

Public Knowledge issued a fantastic statement that not only highlights the ridiculousness of Dodd's threats, but also the hypocrisy of the Hollywood studios on this issue:

. Public Knowledge welcomes constructive dialog with people from all affected sectors about issues surrounding copyright, the state of the movie industry and related concerns. Cybersecurity experts, Internet engineers, venture capitalists, artists, entrepreneurs, human rights advocates, law professors, consumers and public-interest organizations, among others should be included. They were shut out of the process for these bills.

. We suggest that in the meantime, if the MPAA is truly concerned about the jobs of truck drivers and others in the industry, then it can bring its overseas filming back to the U.S. and create more jobs. It could stop holding states hostage for millions of dollars in subsidies that strained state budgets can’t afford while pushing special-interest bills through state legislatures. While that happens, discussions could take place.

quote:

Two lessons from the Megaupload seizure

_{By Glenn Greenwald}

Two events this week produced some serious cognitive dissonance. First, Congressional leaders sheepishly announced that they were withdrawing (at least for the time being) two bills heavily backed by the entertainment industry — the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House – in the wake of vocal online citizen protests (and, more significantly, coordinated opposition from the powerful Silicon Valley industry). Critics insisted that these bills were dangerous because they empowered the U.S. Government, based on mere accusations of piracy and copyright infringement, to shut down websites without any real due process. But just as the celebrations began over the saving of Internet Freedom, something else happened: the U.S. Justice Department not only indicted the owners of one of the world’s largest websites, the file-sharing site Megaupload, but also seized and shut down that site, and also seized or froze millions of dollars of its assets — all based on the unproved accusations, set forth in an indictment, that the site deliberately aided copyright infringement.

In other words, many SOPA opponents were confused and even shocked when they learned that the very power they feared the most in that bill — the power of the U.S. Government to seize and shut down websites based solely on accusations, with no trial — is a power the U.S. Government already possesses and, obviously, is willing and able to exercise even against the world’s largest sites (they have this power thanks to the the 2008 PRO-IP Act pushed by the same industry servants in Congress behind SOPA as well as by forfeiture laws used to seize the property of accused-but-not-convicted drug dealers). This all reminded me quite a bit of the shock and outrage that arose last month over the fact that Barack Obama signed into law a bill (the NDAA) vesting him with the power to militarily detain people without charges, even though, as I pointed out the very first time I wrote about that bill, indefinite detention is already a power the U.S. Government under both Bush and Obama has seized and routinely and aggressively exercises.

I’m not minimizing the importance of either fight: it’s true that SOPA (like the NDAA) would codify these radical powers further and even expand them beyond what the U.S. Government already wields (regarding SOPA’s unique provisions, see Julian Sanchez’s typically thorough analysis). But the defining power that had everyone so up in arms about SOPA — shutting down websites with no trial — is one that already exists in quite a robust form, as any thwarted visitors to Megaupload will discover. There are two points worth making about all of this:

(1) It’s wildly under-appreciated how unrestrained is the Government’s power to do what it wants, and how little effect these debates over various proposed laws have on that power. Contrary to how it was portrayed, the Obama administration’s threatened veto of the NDAA rested largely on the assertion that they did not need a law vesting them with indefinite detention powers because they already have full power to detain people without a trial: not because any actual law expressly vested that power, but because the Bush and Obama DOJs both claimed the 2001 AUMF silently (“implicitly”) authorized it and deferential courts have largely acquiesced to that claim. Thus, Obama argued about indefinite detention in his NDAA veto threat that “the authorities codified in this section already exist” and therefore “the Administration does not believe codification is necessary,” and in his Signing Statement the President similarly asserted that “the executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody” accused Terrorists “and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate.” In other words: we don’t need any law expressly stating that we can imprison people without charges: we do it when we want without that law.

That’s more or less what happened with the SOPA fight. It’s true that website-seizures-without-trials are not quite as lawless as indefinite detentions, since there are actual statutes conferring this power. But it nonetheless sends a very clear message when citizens celebrate a rare victory in denying the Government a power it seeks — the power to shut down websites without a trial — only for the Government to turn around the very next day and shut down one of the world’s largest and best-known sites. Whether intended or not, the message is unmistakable: Congratulations, citizens, on your cute little “democracy” victory in denying us the power to shut down websites without a trial: we’re now going to shut down one of your most popular websites without a trial.

(2) The U.S. really is a society that simply no longer believes in due process: once the defining feature of American freedom that is now scorned as some sort of fringe, radical, academic doctrine. That is not hyperbole. Supporters of both political parties endorse, or at least tolerate, all manner of government punishment without so much as the pretense of a trial, based solely on government accusation: imprisonment for life, renditions to other countries, even assassinations of their fellow citizens. Simply uttering the word Terrorist, without proving it, is sufficient. And now here is Megaupload being completely destroyed — its website shuttered, its assets seized, ongoing business rendered impossible — based solely on the unproven accusation of Piracy.

It’s true, as Sanchez observes, that “the owners of Megaupload don’t seem like particularly sympathetic characters,” but he also details that there are difficult and weighty issues that would have to be resolved to prove they engaged in criminal conduct. Megaupload obviously contains numerous infringing videos, but so does YouTube, yet both sites also entail numerous legal activities as well. As Sanchez put it: “most people, presumably, recognize that shutting down YouTube in order to disable access to those videos would not be worth the enormous cost to protected speech.” The Indictment is a classic one-side-of-the-story document; even the most mediocre lawyers can paint any picture they want when unchallenged. That’s why the government is not supposed to dole out punishments based on accusatory instruments, but only after those accusations are proved in an adversarial proceeding.

Whatever else is true, those issues should be decided upon a full trial in a court of law, not by government decree. Especially when it comes to Draconian government punishments — destroying businesses, shutting down websites, imprisoning people for life, assassinating them — what distinguishes a tyrannical society from a free one is whether the government is first required to prove guilt in a fair, adversarial proceeding. This is a precept Americans were once taught about why their country was superior, was reflexively understood, and was enshrined as the core political principle: “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It’s simply not a principle that is believed in any longer, and therefore is not remotely observed.

* * * * *

On a different note: both Jeffrey Goldberg and David Bernstein have posts about my arguments on the smearing of CAP that rest on the same premise: namely, that to point out that someone has “dual loyalties” is an accusation of disloyalty to their own country or even worse. As I explain here, that premise is false. There’s nothing inherently wrong with dual loyalties: those are common among many groups, especially in a country of immigrants, and are typically benign. What’s menacing is to smear those who discuss its existence and the way in which it influences our politics. For more on this, see The Atlantic‘s Robert Wright: “How to Smear a Washington Think Tank.”

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2012 03:27 schreef Nemephis het volgende:
Ik weet niet of je nu een feed hebt waaruit je kopiëert en plakt of dat je ouderwets Googled, Papierversnipperaar, maar ik vind déze feed in ieder geval wél handig

quote:

'Anonymous' hackers attack Brazilian websites

RIO DE JANEIRO — The computer hacker group Anonymous attacked websites of Brazil's federal district Saturday as well as one belonging to a Brazilian singer to protest the forced closure of Megaupload.com.

Anonymous posted messages on Twitter describing attacks against hundreds of Brazilian sites that share the URL 'df.gov.br,' which are owned by the government of the federal capital in Rio de Janeiro.

The Federal District press office denied Saturday that the hackers succeeded in shutting down the websites.

The Internet news site G1, owned by television network Globo, confirmed the early morning computer attacks but said the Federal District's 24-hour-a-day information technology team was able to stop them.

However, the hackers did succeed in shutting down the website of popular Brazilian singer Paula Fernandes. They posted the image of a grim-faced joker with a message saying, "If Megaupload is down, you are down too." It was signed "GhostofThreads."

Megaupload is a file-sharing service company that allows customers to upload files to a website, where their information can be downloaded by other Internet users. The US Justice Department shut down the company's website on January 19 after its owners were indicted on copyright infringement charges.

Hong Kong-based Megaupload has over 150 million users and 50 million visitors per day, or 4% of all global Internet traffic.

The site is responsible for "massive online piracy" that generated "more than $175 million in criminal proceeds" and caused "more than a half-billion dollars in harm to copyright owners," the FBI and US Justice Department said in a joint statement.

Anonymous -- a group of loosely organized computer hackers scattered around the world and represented by the joker face in white mask and black sarcastic smile -- is known for "denial of service" attacks on websites to protest certain government policies.

Their attacks this week, which they call "hacktivism," shut down the websites of the FBI and US Justice Department for several hours to protest the closure of Megaupload.com.

On Friday, Anonymous also briefly attacked the website of the French presidency after French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he welcomed the decision of a US federal court to shut down Megaupload.com.

quote:

Rick Falkvinge: the Swedish radical leading the fight over web freedoms

The tech entrepreneur launched the Pirate party to fight online censorship. Now, it is Europe's fastest growing political group

quote:

Not radical politics. Or illegal file-sharing. Or revolutionary e-currencies that may destroy the global banking system. Because, although sipping a soy latte in the Stockholm cafe that he calls his office, Falkvinge has the air of a successful corporate lawyer, he's actually the founder and chief ideologue of Europe's youngest, boldest, and fastest growing political movement: the Pirate party.

quote:

What they've done is to use technology in new ways to harness political power. Falkvinge describes how "we're online 24/7", how they operate in what he calls "the swarm" nobody is in charge, and nobody can tell anybody else what to do and how, essentially, they are the political embodiment of online activist culture.

quote:

"We're at an incredible crossroads right now. They're demanding the right to wiretap the entire population. It's unprecedented. This is a technology that can be used to give everybody a voice. But it can also be used to build a Big Brother society so dystopian that if someone had written a book about it in the 1950s, it would have been discarded as unrealistic."

Anonymous - Global Cyber War I

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

Anonymous - Operation Revenge

quote:

Greetings, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Government, We are Anonymous.

On Janurary, 19, 2012.
It has come to the attention of Anonymous that you have decided to buckle to the pressure of the entertainment industry and arrest 7 members of staff of [file-share site] Megaupload along with closing their website down.

Megaupload has been shutdown by you, that hosted files, movies, backups and much more. You have caused a major error in your action. You have ruined not just the users of megaupload, you have ruined companies and businesses. By doing this, you have made people angry.

And you have made us angry. Our anger shall be redirected at you.

People from around the world will be joining forces. And will be launching one of the largest cyber attacks in the history of mankind. We will be united in our common interests and we will once again be fighting for our freedom, You will not escape the wrath of our Redemption and you will not destroy anymore websites that promote free speech.

We are The redemption users.
We will not go quitely into the night.
We will not vanish without a fight.
We're going to survive.
And we will not obey you.
So, expect our brothers, sisters, and the world.

Operation Revenge, engaged.

We are Anonymous.
We are legion.
We are divided by zero and many.
We do not forgive internet censorship.
We do not forget your actions.
To the United States Government, you should have expected us.

We Are Legion: The Story of the Hacktivists - Trailer

quote:

A clip from the film WE ARE LEGION: The Story of the Hacktivists

Turning the internet back on in Egypt

quote:

We Are Legion is a documentary about Anonymous and hacktivism. The film explores the historical roots of early hacktivist groups like Cult of the Dead Cow and Electronic Disturbance Theater and then follows Anonymous from the early days of 4chan to a full-blown movement with a global reach.

We are currently in the process of shooting and editing and hope to be finished in early 2012.

quote:

Operation Donkey Punch: Anonymous targets pro-SOPA Dems

SOPA and PIPA may be in zombie mode, having burned up in the fire of SOPA “Blackout Day” protests and the largest attack by Anonymous on record, but activists who opposed the legislation understand that the Internet wars have only just begun.

Barrett Brown, often recognized as a public face of Anonymous, announced that his own group, Project PM, will be keeping an eye on Democratic congressmen who hope to “quietly support” the legislation.

“Yesterday my ProjectPM group began preparations for a campaign to go after any Democratic congressmen who hope to quietly support SOPA without drawing any negative attention that might damage their cred among liberals,” Brown told the Daily Caller in an email.

While Republicans evacuated their support of SOPA and PIPA — the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, and the Protect IP Act in the Senate — en masse Wednesday and Thursday after constituents flooded their offices with calls and emails, only a few Democrats did the same.

The bills were promoted as bipartisan legislation, but the top five beneficiaries of campaign donations from supporters of SOPA and PIPA — amounting to a sum of over $1 million — were all Democrats.

The Daily Caller previously reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who until Friday had planned on introducing PIPA to the Senate floor as a “jobs bill,” received over $3.5 million dollars in campaign donations.

“OpDonkeyPunch is currently in information-gathering phase, ” Brown told The Daily Caller, “we had intended to begin work tonight, but the change in situation now needs to be assessed. This will give us time to decide who is most vulnerable to a series of targeted propaganda campaigns of the sort that will bring attention to themselves and their donors, among other things.”

_{CONTINUED at The Daily Caller.}

Megaupload Op: Anonymous downs FBI, DoJ, music sites in biggest attack ever

twitter:

TheAnonMessage twitterde op zondag 22-01-2012 om 18:29:51 RETWEET! CBS.COM HAS BEEN DELETED!!! #CBS #ANONYMOUS reageer retweet

twitter:

BarrettBrownLOL twitterde op zondag 22-01-2012 om 18:24:44 CBS web directory deleted. #Anonymous reageer retweet

quote:

NO LIMIT
NO ADVERTISING
100% FREE
100% ANONYMOUS

We will use Russian servers, FUCK FBI, SOPA & PIPA

quote:

White House Petitioned to Investigate MPAA Bribery

The public has started a petition asking the White House to investigate comments made by MPAA CEO Chris Dodd a few days ago on Fox News. Closing a tumultuous week of wide protest against PIPA and SOPA – two MPAA backed anti-piracy bills – Dodd threatened to stop the cash-flow to politicians who dare to take a stand against pro-Hollywood legislation. Clear bribery, the petition claims, and already thousands agree.

doddResponding to the mass protests against the PIPA and SOPA bills on Wednesday, the MPAA has revealed its true nature.

First, MPAA CEO Chris Dodd described the blackouts of Wikipedia, Reddit and others as corporate PR stunts which manipulated and exploited the sites’ users.

“Some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns,” Dodd said.

Then, a few days later when many lawmakers had already dropped their support for the anti-piracy bills, the MPAA’s comments turned even more grim. Talking to Fox News, the MPAA’s boss threatened to stop contributing to politicians who don’t back legislation designed to protect Hollywood.

“Those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,” Dodd said.

Although it’s no secret that the movie industry has a powerful lobby in Washington, explicitly admitting that bribery is one of the tactics the MPAA uses to have their way wasn’t well received by the public. A few hours ago a White house petition was started to investigate Chris Dodd and the MPAA for alleged bribery.

“This is an open admission of bribery and a threat designed to provoke a specific policy goal. This is a brazen flouting of the ‘above the law’ status people of Dodd’s position and wealth enjoy,” the petition reads.

“We demand justice. Investigate this blatant bribery and indict every person, especially government officials and lawmakers, who is involved.”

In just a few hours the petition amassed more than 5,000 votes and this number is increasing rapidly. As a former Senator, Chris Dodd has many friends in Washington so it’s unclear whether the petition will accomplish anything, but if the numbers grow big enough the White House won’t be able to ignore it either.

The MPAA’s response to the PIPA and SOPA opposition this week is a sign that they might be losing control in Washington. At the very least, they are starting to lose their patience and become frustrated, which may not help their cause at this point.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2012 20:16 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:

[..]

Corruptie, handel met voorkennis, onzuiver handelen, wordt in de VS keihard aangepakt, kunnen ze in NL een puntje aan zuigen.

quote:

DOJ vs. Anonymous: Who’s Tricking Who?

With Anonymous’ #OpMegaUpload in full swing, it’s time to ask ourselves an important question: Who actually has the upper hand in this “battle” – the U.S. Government or Anonymous?

You’re probably aware that the DOJ delivered a blow on Thursday with its takedown of major filesharing site MegaUpload. Just hours later, government websites ranging from the DOJ to the U.S. Copyright Office were taken down as well as sites of SOPA supporting organizations like theMPAA and RIAA. Anonymous quickly claimed credit, and #OpMegaUpload was born.
When Thursday was all said and done, it ended up being the biggest coordinated attack in the history of Anonymous – more than a dozen major websites down and over 5,000 worldwide participants. Many on the interwebs rejoiced.

However since yesterday’s attack, there has been growing backlash toward Anonymous’ actions. When Anonymous went buck wild with their DDoS attacks, did it actually do more harm than good? As wonderful as they feel to some, are revenge attacks on government properties actually counterproductive?

Molly Wood at CNET expresses this sentiment, saying that the U.S. Government purposefully scheduled the MegaUpload takedown to occur right after the successful SOPA Blackout protests, to do away with any credibility engendered by the opposition movement.
I’ll post the entire relevant chunk of her argument because it is rather elegant:

. My sources tell me the timing of the Megaupload arrests was no accident. The federal government, they say, was spoiling for a fight after the apparent defeat of SOPA/PIPA and not a little humiliation at the hands of the Web. And what better way to bolster the cause for cyber-crackdown than by pointing to a massive display of cyber-terrorism at the hands of everyone’s favorite Internet boogeyman: Anonymous?

. If the SOPA/PIPA protests were the Web’s moment of inspiring, non-violent, hand-holding civil disobedience, #OpMegaUpload feels like the unsettling wave of car-burning hooligans that sweep in and incite the riot portion of the play. The result is always riot gear, tear gas, arrests, injury, and a sea of knee-jerk policies, laws, and reactions that address the destructive actions of a few, and not the good intentions of the many.

I don’t truly know whether Anonymous was cleverly goaded into #OpMegaUpload. But I do know that an attack this big on this many government sites will effectively erase those good Internet vibrations that were rattling around Capitol Hill this week and harden the perspective of legislators and law enforcement who want to believe that the Web community is made up of wild, law-breaking pirates. That, ultimately, may help strengthen the business–and the emotional–case for the pro-SOPA, pro-PIPA lobby. Did the feds just get the last lulz?


Now, I have no reason to doubt her sources or her argument. I actually agree to some extent. The timing of the MegaUpload takedown was too perfect. Will #OpMegaUpload erase some of those “good internet vibrations” and embolden members of Congress and the DOJ to push for harsher laws to crackdown on what they perceive as “cyber-terrorism?” Possibly.

And was that their goal all along? To trick Anonymous into a reaction and then use that reaction to paint them as the enemy? Again, possibly. But this argument assumes that all of this is news to Anonymous – that they were somehow tricked into all of this. My point is (this might sound a little Inception-ey): What if Anonymous began #OpMegaUpload with the full understanding that it would elicit a tough response from the DOJ and other parts of the U.S. government. A plan within a plan, if you will.

Think about it: when’s the last time that you saw the internet community rally around a cause in such a massive and effective manner? Maybe Anonymous feels that this overflow of outrage capital can be used to fire up the community even more. “Sure, go ahead and try to come up with harsher internet restrictions right now. Try to make more arrests.” With some many eyes on the cause of internet freedom because of SOPA & PIPA, is Anonymous daring the other side to make a drastic move? Have they seen the internet community pissed off and united in a meaningful way and realized that it’s just the tip of the iceberg – the collective minds of the web have so much more to offer when it comes to protest?
So, a trap set by the federal government or not, maybe Anonymous felt that this was the time for something big.

Or maybe we’re all just over-thinking this.