Anonops #14: All about control

quote:

Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces “Aaron’s Law” to Prevent Future CFAA Abuses

quote:

Rep. Zoe Lofgren has opened the forum for discussion and support of a new law she is introducing in response to the recent suicide of Aaron Swartz under intense pressure from prosecutors.

Posted at Reddit, a company that Aaron is often said to have had a hand in creating, she writes about changing the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA):

As we mourn Aaron Swartz’s tragic death, many of us are deeply troubled as we learn more about the government’s actions against him. His family’s statement about this speaks volumes about the inappropriate efforts undertaken by the U.S. government. There’s no way to reverse the tragedy of Aaron’s death, but we can work to prevent a repeat of the abuses of power he experienced.

We should prevent what happened to Aaron from happening to other Internet users. The government was able to bring such disproportionate charges against Aaron because of the broad scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the wire fraud statute. It looks like the government used the vague wording of those laws to claim that violating an online service’s user agreement or terms of service is a violation of the CFAA and the wire fraud statute.

Using the law in this way could criminalize many everyday activities and allow for outlandishly severe penalties.

When our laws need to be modified, Congress has a responsibility to act. A simple way to correct this dangerous legal interpretation is to change the CFAA and the wire fraud statutes to exclude terms of service violations. I will introduce a bill that does exactly that. In addition to the posted link, a draft copy of the bill is available here. In coming days, I will seek cosponsors for the bill from both political parties.

As you know from prior posts, I am drafting broader measures to improve copyright law that are separate from this effort. But this bill to amend CFAA and wire fraud statutes, which I would like to call “Aaron’s Law,” should be enacted separately and swiftly. It could be an important tribute to him.

But that is likely to happen only with your help and your support.

quote:

Petition To Fire Aaron Swartz’ Prosecutor Reaches Goal

quote:

Early Tuesday morning, the petition to the U.S. Administration to fire Carmen Ortiz reached the prerequisite 25,000 signatures. Carmen Ortiz was the prosecutor that drove the prosecution against Aaron Swartz, which many mean contributed or led to his tragic suicide. The U.S. Administration, by its own rules, must now take the petition seriously and respond to it.

quote:

Ethical Hacking: Should good intentions get special protection from prosecution?

quote:

If you're dedicated, hacking offers all sorts of rewards and threats depending on whose hacking whom. Which brings us to the "Ethical Hacker" ... the Hacktivist whose intentions are well-meaning, intruding just like the other guys but only to expose internet vulnerabilities so that someone far more nefarious doesn't get in there. When Henk Krol tapped into the world of Ethical Hacking he didn't even know the term but he did invite the TV cameras. Now the Dutch MP faces charges that could cost him his career. So what's digital trespassing and what's a public service?

quote:

#OpAngel 2 – The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act reform begins now!

Anonymous: #OpAngel, Phase II.

quote:

Operation Angel, began by Anonymous in response to the death of Aaron Swartz, successfully accomplished phase one of it’s mission by preventing Westboro Baptist Church members from picketing Swartz’s funeral. Anonymous is now preparing for a longer and more extensive battle within the U.S. legal system.

Aaron Swartz was essential to the progression of the Internet. He was renowned for his role in the development of RSS, Open Library and the creation of Reddit. Instead of capitalizing on his talents solely for personal gain, Aaron chose to dedicate his life to the defense of internet freedom and the preservation of civil liberties. At a time when America’s educational system is ranked 17th in the world, he believed that knowledge should be made freely available to all who seek it. Before taking his own life, Aaron was facing up to 35 years in prison for acting on this belief.

The charges against Swartz are only one example of malicious prosecution by U.S. Attorney’s in a history of unequaled viciousness against those accused of cyber crimes. It is clear that the punishment Swartz faced was not proportional to the crimes of which he was accused. We cannot pretend that our system is just when perpetrators of violence are dealt lighter sentences than those whose alleged crimes are essentially victimless. It is our conclusion that dubious laws such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act serve only to provide prosecutors with the means to selectively target and unfairly punish online activists. Anonymous intends to continue Operation Angel with the goal of reforming these laws.

There are several actions planned to raise awareness of this issue and they are listed below:

quote:

The political consequences of academic paywalls

Academic paywalls unwittingly benefit oppressive regimes - at society's expense.

The suicide of Aaron Swartz, the activist committed to making scholarly research accessible to everyone, has renewed debate about the ethics of academic publishing. Under the current system, academic research is housed in scholarly databases, which charge as much as $50 per article to those without a university affiliation.

The only people who profit from this system are academic publishers. Scholars receive no money from the sale of their articles, and are marginalized by a public who cannot afford to read their work. Ordinary people are denied access to information and prohibited from engaging in scholarly debate.

Academic paywalls are often presented as a moral or financial issue. How can one justify profiting off unpaid labour while denying the public access to research frequently funded through taxpayer dollars? But paywalls also have broader political consequences. Whether or not an article is accessible affects more than just the author or reader. It affects anyone who could potentially benefit from scholarly insight, information or expertise – that is, everyone.

The impact of the paywall is most significant in places where censorship and propaganda reign. When information is power, the paywall privileges the powerful. Dictatorships are the paywall’s unwitting beneficiary.

Publishing as a means to freedom

In 2006, I wrote an article proving that the government of Uzbekistan had fabricated a terrorist group in order to justify shooting hundreds of Uzbek civilians gathered at a protest in the city of Andijon. Like all peer-reviewed academic articles, “Inventing Akromiya: The Role of Uzbek Propagandists in the Andijon Massacre” was published in a journal and sequestered from public view. In 2008, I published the article on academia.edu, a website where scholars can upload their works as pdfs on individual homepages. This had consequences beyond what I had anticipated.

At the time my article was published, hundreds of Uzbeks had fled across the border to Kyrgyzstan, from where they were relocated as refugees to Western states. Among these Uzbeks were witnesses to the shooting in Andijon as well as people who were accused of being members of “Akromiya” – a loose collective of devout Muslim businessmen who were known for their financial acumen, charitable initiatives and profound piety, all of which the government of Uzbekistan found threatening. The men of “Akromiya” – an appellative coined by an Uzbek propagandist after alleged leader Akrom Yo’ldoshev -- bore no resemblance to the violent Islamic extremists depicted in Uzbek state literature.

Over the next few years, many Uzbeks linked to the “Akromiya” controversy began petitioning for political asylum. Because they had been labeled Islamic terrorists by the Uzbek government, they faced an uphill battle in the Western legal system. My academic article became a piece of evidence in many of these asylum cases, including this one from the United Nations Refugee Agency, which cites the copy available at academia.edu. Because I made my work open, it helped keep innocent people from being deported to a country where they would be jailed or killed.

'Shielded from the people who need it most'

When we talk about academic research being shielded from the general public, we forget that the general public includes non-academic experts to whom such research is directly relevant – such as lawyers, doctors, journalists, policy officials, and activists. Academics love to complain about superficial reporting or uninformed policy, but their own system denies professionals the opportunity to add depth to their work. With database subscription fees running tens of thousands of dollars, even prestigious organizations cannot afford to penetrate the paywall.

I regularly receive requests for my academic articles, and I always comply – as do most of the academics I know. Contrary to popular perception, most scholars want their work to be read. But for every researcher plaintively tweeting that they need a paywalled PDF, there are many for whom tracking down barricaded knowledge seems too much trouble. Instead, they rely on what resources are available. This means that a lot of academic research, some of which could have profound political implications, is ignored.

After the suicide of Aaron Swartz, many academics published their papers online and linked to them on Twitter under the hashtag #pdftribute. They did this to honour Swartz’s fight to make information available to more than the academic elite. Critics have argued that this action is essentially meaningless, as it fails to address the career incentive of the professoriate, whose ability to advance professionally rests on their willingness to publish in journals inaccessible to the public.

This is a valid point – for Western academics. For the rest of the world, it is irrelevant. When an activist needs information about the political conditions of her country, she should be able to read it. When a lawyer needs ammunition against a corrupt regime, she should be able to find it. When a journalist is struggling to cover a foreign conflict, she should have access to research on that country.

One could argue that non-academics sources suffice, but that is not necessarily the case. The specialisation that makes academic work seem obscure or boring to a general audience is also what makes it uniquely valuable. Academics cover topics in depth that few cover at all. Unfortunately, their expertise is shielded from the people who need it most.

Academic's incentives vs. society's needs

Shortly after pdftribute launched, a friend asked me whether she should post her articles online. She is an assistant professor who studies an authoritarian state. She has published a number of articles in paywalled scholarly journals. For this, she will probably get tenure.

My friend spends her free time educating the world about the conditions of this country through social media. She does not hoard her data. Instead she does everything possible to make it available to anyone who needs it. This ultimately included joining #pdftribute and publishing her articles online. For this, she could potentially get in trouble.

My friend knew she had to do what was right. As a scholar of an authoritarian regime, she understands that one of the greatest weapons of dictatorships is their ability to control information. She has witnessed firsthand the importance of accurate statistics, of open sources, of censored stories told. She knows what happens when those resources are denied.

Information is power, but information is also freedom. With that freedom comes responsibility. Scholars can no longer question whether their work is relevant to a broader audience, because in the digital age, that audience is simply too broad. All scholarly work is relevant to someone – and the impact can be profound. Whether we allow that impact to be realized remains to be seen.



_{Sarah Kendzior is an anthropologist who recently received her PhD from Washington University in St Louis.}

quote:

Anonymous Group Squares Off With Westboro Baptist Church Over Aaron Swartz Memorial

quote:

A spectacle of sex, God and hatred broke out in Times Square this afternoon. Dozens of protestors gathered to demonstrate against representatives of Westboro Baptist Church, who were in town, apparently, to protest a memorial honoring the Internet activist Aaron Swartz.

Only two WBC protestors showed up, and were cordoned off in a six-by-six foot pen near the corner of 45th Street and Broadway, where they preached, we think, a message of God’s hatred, or something along those lines.

Members of the Anonymous faction Motherfuckery were among the counter-protestors, gathering in a cordon of their own and chanting phrases such as “Walrus, walrus” and “suck my dick” at the WBC protestors.

Other demonstrators included a troupe of actors from the burlesque musical Let My People Come, and a larger group of more earnest protestors, who insisted in song that God loves us all.

quote:

Cornyn Questions Holder Over Death of Reddit Co-Founder Aaron Swartz

_{Jan 17 2013}

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder questioning the conduct of the Justice Department over their involvement in the prosecution of Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz:

quote:

The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Holder:

Like many Americans, I was saddened to learn last week of the death of Aaron Swartz. Mr. Swartz was, among other things, a brilliant technologist and a committed activist for the causes in which he believed – including, notably, the freedom of information. His death, at the young age of twenty-six, was tragic.

As you are doubtless aware, Mr. Swartz was facing an aggressive prosecution by the Department of Justice when he took his own life. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts accused him of breaking into the computer networks of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and downloading without authorization thousands of academic articles from a subscription service. While the subscription service did not support a prosecution, in July 2011 the U.S. Attorney’s office indicted him on four counts of fraud and computer crimes, charges that reportedly could have resulted in up to 35 years imprisonment and a $1 million dollar fine. This past September, the U.S. Attorney’s office filed a superseding indictment charging Mr. Swartz with thirteen felony counts and the prospect of even longer imprisonment and greater fines.

Mr. Swartz’s case raises important questions about prosecutorial conduct:

First, on what basis did the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts conclude that her office’s conduct was “appropriate?” Did that office, or any office within the Department, conduct a review? If so, please identify that review and supply its contents.

Second, was the prosecution of Mr. Swartz in any way retaliation for his exercise of his rights as a citizen under the Freedom of Information Act? If so, I recommend that you refer the matter immediately to the Inspector General.

Third, what role, if any, did the Department’s prior investigations of Mr. Swartz play in the decision of with which crimes to charge him? Please explain the basis for your answer.

Fourth, why did the U.S. Attorney’s office file the superseding indictment?

Fifth, when the U.S. Attorney’s office drafted the indictment and the superseding indictment, what consideration was given to whether the counts charged and the associated penalties were proportional to Mr. Swartz’s alleged conduct and its impact upon victims?

Sixth, was it the intention of the U.S. Attorney and/or her subordinates to “make an example” of Mr. Swartz? Please explain.

Finally, the U.S. Attorney has blamed the “severe punishments authorized by Congress” for the apparent harshness of the charges Mr. Swartz faced. Does the Department of Justice give U.S. Attorneys discretion to charge defendants (or not charge them) with crimes consistent with their view of the gravity of the wrongdoing in a specific case?

I appreciate your prompt and thorough answers to these questions.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN

United States Senator

quote:

Anonymous hacker Christopher Weatherhead jailed for 18 months

Anonymous hacker Christopher Weatherhead has been handed an 18-month jail sentence for carrying out a series of high-profile distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks.

The 22-year-old was previously convicted of hacking into the websites of Visa, Mastercard and PayPal, costing the latter an estimated £3.5 million, Sky News reports.

Fellow Anonymous members Ashley Rhodes and Peter Gibson were tried alongside Weatherhead at Southwark Crown Court, receiving seven months in jail and a six-month sentence, suspended for two years, respectively.

Rhodes, 28, was found guilty of conspiring with Weatherhead to impair the operations of the targeted businesses between 2010 and 2011, while 24-year-old Gibson was deemed to have played a lesser role, which he admitted to.

Judge Peter Testar said: "It is intolerable that when an individual or a group disagrees with a particular entity's activities they should be free to curtail that activity by means of attacks such as those which took place in this case."

A fourth man, 18-year-old Jake Birchall, has also admitted to playing a part in the conspiracy and will be sentenced at a later date.

DDoS attacks overload computer systems by hitting them with an impossible number of requests simultaneously.

Victims of the Weatherhead-led attacks, referred to as Operation Payback, received the following message: "You've tried to bite the Anonymous hand. You angered the hive and now you are being stung."

The ring leader is believed to have targeted Paypal after it refused to process transactions for the Wau Holland Foundation, a group attempting to raise funding for WikiLeaks.

twitter:

YourAnonNews twitterde op donderdag 24-01-2013 om 19:06:39 Barrett Brown has been indicted for a 3rd time | http://t.co/0cHDwd52 | Via @JayLeidermanLaw reageer retweet

twitter:

YourAnonNews twitterde op donderdag 24-01-2013 om 19:08:18 "Congrats to @BarrettBrownLOL for reaching the century mark - he's now facing 100 years in federal prison." - @JayLeidermanLaw reageer retweet

twitter:

AnonyBroadcast twitterde op zaterdag 26-01-2013 om 19:56:08 Anonymous gave you HBgary. #Anonymous gave you Stratfor. And now we would like to introduce The Dept. Of Justice. #oplastresort reageer retweet

quote:

Alleged Anonymous "Warhead" actually a dud

quote:

As of midnight Friday PST, Anonymous had hacked the front page of USSC.gov, replacing the normal content with a statement, a video, and a series of links to downloadable files.

Twelve hours later, the site, that of the United States Sentencing Commission, which sets sentencing guidelines for the federal courts, was down.

And 24 hours after that, the worldwide hacktivist collective dropped an “Anonymous Warhead,” as the subject line proclaimed in an email the Daily Dot received early Sunday morning from an Iranian domain. The leak contained a series of hundreds of names and addresses attributed to the Witness Protection Program, a program supervised by the United States Marshals Service to keep witnesses in danger safe before, during and after their testimony. (Due to the sensitivity of the information disclosed, the Daily Dot has elected to not link to the actual release.)

. “Our anonfamily brothers in America have (thank the Prophet, PBUH) trust us with the labor of delivery to you the news of the hack of your Witness Protection Program’ for traitors and dogs. All their false names are revealed and as they cast eyes away from the path now all the eyes must be on them in their dark places.”

quote:

Update: @AnonymousIRC, one of the more official Twitter channels for Anonymous activity, claims the "USSC on @doxbin is a fake," comprised of data "ripped from a two year old document."

quote:

Correction: Several Anonymous entities have claimed that the leak is a hoax. The headline of this story has been altered to reflect this.

quote:

Anonymous re-hacks US Sentencing site into video game Asteroids

The U.S. Sentencing Commission website has been hacked again and a code distributed by Anonymous "Operation Last Resort" turns ussc.gov into a playable video game.

Visitors enter the code, and then the website that sets guidelines for sentencing in United States Federal courts becomes "Asteroids."

Shooting away at the ussc.gov webpage reveals an image of Anonymous. The trademark Anonymous "Guy Fawkes" face is comprised of white text saying, "We do not forgive. We do not forget."

Gallery: U.S. Sentencing website hacked into video game "Asteroids"

Hacktivist group Anonymous began its "Operation Last Resort" Friday night by hacking the U.S. Sentencing Commission website in the name of suicide victim Aaron Swatrz, demanding reform in the U.S. justice system.

The government website was pulled offline and restored by Saturday. Now, on Sunday afternoon, the U.S. Sentencing Commission website appears to have been compromised a second time, severely, wherein a code being issued by Operation Last Resort and other Anonymous social media accounts turns ussc.gov into a game of Asteroids.

twitter:

YourAnonNews twitterde op maandag 28-01-2013 om 11:08:50 A protester on the edge of Cairo’s #Tahrir Square, January 26, 2013 (Photo: Jesse Rosenfeld) #Egypt http://t.co/V8zNQGD0 (via @57UN) reageer retweet

quote:

Press Release Regarding the Sentencing of Christopher Weatherhead (Nerdo)

Earlier this week, we learned with great sadness that Christopher Weatherhead-- our "Nerdo"-- was sentenced to an 18 month jail term for his "integral role" in protests that occured under the banner of "Operation Payback". We consider the guilty verdict a complete miscarriage of justice, the sentence incredibly unfair and in no way proportionate to the alleged crime. The absurdity of this sham of a trial should be an embarrasment to the UK, its system of justice and to the entire population.

The prosecution is clearly comprised of delusional and arrogant bureaucrats who care more for advancing their own careers than actual justice.

This utter ignorance and pervasive stupidity inherent in the Crown Courts is evident in Judge Peter Testar's remark that Nerdo was nabbed because of "clever" police-work. We know the truth-- leaning on a snitch is no more "clever" than a piano smashing against the pavement is "graceful." Fennic-- the snitch-- of course, gets off without serving a filthy second of jail time-- even though the snitch admitted to owning an IRC botnet. Last we checked, that IS an actual crime.

Their claims of millions in damages are ludicrous and absurd. PayPal itself has repeatedly and publicly admitted to no downtime or loss of service Even the goverments own experts admit that a Denial of Service attack causes no damage. We feel the jury was intentionally misled in regards to the actual facts of IRC in general. or the prosecutions own knowledge of it is so lacking that they are not fit to prosecute a case of this type. For this reason alone, we strongly believe that the trial was improper. A new trial should be ordered and qualified prosecutors must be assigned. Jury instructions were also inadequate. How does one instruct a jury what is admissible or important when the jurist himself does not understand the subject? These reasons should at minimum be cause for a steep reduction in this sentence to at least the level of similar or even much more horrific crimes

Claiming that Nerdo, or anyone for that matter can hold some sort of seniority within Anonymous is quite curious to say the least. How does one prove that a nickname has only ever been used by one person? Further more how do you validate this seniority in a headless organization? If a channel operator tells an IRC channel that they are a giraffe, does this mean every user in that channel must believe this? Quite the opposite. Having power in an IRC channel does not give you control over people. You cannot "decide" what these people will do.

You preach to us about justice, but we know that Nicholas Beaumont-Dark-- the son of a Conservative MP who trafficked in such depraved and disgusting child pornography that it even makes 4chan /b/arf-- was spared jail time even though he admitted to sixteen separate incidents of making and DISTRIBUTING this vile material. He is not in jail at this moment because of his "obvious remorse". A known, admitted pedophile ducks jail because he cries crocodile tears and says "he's sorry," but a man dedicated to the cause of fighting government corruption must serve eighteen months in a high-security prison. If this is your concept of "justice," we vomit upon it.

Freedom is our right. Anonymity is an extension of that basic human right. Calling attention to injustice is paramount in maintaining that freedom so many have fought to obtain for us all. We understand that law enforcement personnel want to have the easiest jobs in the world where computers and surveillance cameras track everyone's movements and statisticians reduce us to behavioral algorithms so they can define us as criminals It is not true freedom if it requires us to fatten the stomachs and wallets of the 1% who see the citizenry as a mass of potential criminals. People who object to being turned into chattel are not arrogant, impudent or churlish-- their "youthful idealism" is sorely lacking in a world bereft of principles and where the concept of "morality" has been reduced to "do not embarrass the State."

Nerdo was crucified because the government needed to do something to show the public that they were still in control, that they could stop this online monster known as Anonymous. We know that this is not the case. Governments around the world are failing their citizens in various ways including the basic right of a fair trial by ones peers. They fail to protect their citizens from the real criminals: themselves. It is you who have forced us to protect ourselves from the real danger to freedom. If you need to put a face to those criminals, look into a mirror.

Signed

The AnonOps Staff
info@anonops.com

Freedom for Nerdo. Freedom for the PayPal 14. Freedom for all those wrongly persecuted by their governments.

quote:

Twitter’s New Transparency Report Shows Increase in Government Demands, Sheds Light on Copyright Takedowns

quote:

Yesterday, Twitter released its second semi-annual transparency report, which details the numbers behind every user data demand, censorship order and copyright takedown request that the micro-blogging site received in the second half of 2012.

As with Google’s transparency report last week, there was a clear increase in government demands for user data, with the United States leading the way by far. Censorship requests from around the world also increased. In addition, the report shed valuable light on the copyright takedown procedure that also often results in undue censorship.

With their respective reports, Twitter and Google are leaders in a positive new trend of sharing information that sheds new light on just how government surveillance and censorship works. It should be a model for other companies, including Facebook, Skype, and cell phone carriers.

Let’s take a deeper look at the information Twitter provided:

twitter:

RavenXV twitterde op vrijdag 01-02-2013 om 07:57:45 http://www.ussc.gov/ is under "construction" aka: They have to rebuild their server. #OpLastResort #Anonymous #AntiSec #Lulz. reageer retweet

quote:

Anonymous X-SecT Exclusive Interview: Hacktivists Explain Criticism Of Attack On USSC. Gov

quote:

By now, anyone who watches television, reads a newspaper or surfs the Internet has heard of Anonymous, the hacktivist collective that declared war on oppression, child pornography, big government, and Internet censorship. Anonymous and their affiliates have taken part in highly publicized attacks on Paypal, USSC. Gov, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Church of Scientology, the Department of Justice, the Israeli Government, Strategic Forecasting, and many other prominent targets since the group was founded in 2003.

Describing Anonymous is complicated. The public knows them from their YouTube videos announcing their attacks, complete with a spokesperson wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, voicing their battle cry, “We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.” The world hears about the latest Anonymous hacking adventure from the mass media, who hype every episode as if we were watching the doomsday scenario in the movie: WarGames.

Anyone can join Anonymous, simply by participating in the movement, and supporting the group’s principals. In reality, Anonymous are not hackers, they are activists who use their hacking skills as a tool of civil disobedience to fight against the system they oppose. In their worldview, they are fighting tyranny. The government, of course, views them simply as criminals and cyber-terrorists.

On January 25, 2013, a person or persons claiming to be Anonymous hacked USSC. Gov, the website of the United States Sentencing Commission. The attack, called Operation Last Resort, attracted a storm of media attention and supporters initially celebrated the event as a triumph over the Leviathan know as the Federal Government. The website was defaced in memory of Internet Activist Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide several days earlier; a list of demands was posted, along with a link to download an encrypted file claiming to contain information about prominent public figures that would “bring down the government and cause chaos.”

A week after Operation Last Resort, the file remained encrypted and no information was released. The government basically ignored the threats and Janet Napolitano continued to demand a crackdown on the so-called cyber terrorists.

Behind the scenes, people in the hacktivist movement were beginning to wonder what exactly was going on. Why would anyone go to the trouble of hacking an important government website, make serious demands cloaked in threats of retribution, and then drop the issue? People began to wonder who was really responsible for the attack on USSC. Gov and what was the true purpose of Operation Last Resort?

All hell broke loose when a group named Anonymous X-SecT began to ask these same questions publicly on their websites and Facebook pages. They also offered some possible answers. They wondered if Anonymous was really behind Operation Last Resort or if it was a false flag attack by an intelligence agency of the United Sates Government. Was Operation Last Resort intended to identify anyone who downloaded the data bomb and build a file to be used against them in a government crackdown?

Anonymous X-SecT also raised another frightening possibility. What if Operation Last Resort was actually the effort of a highly sophisticated criminal organization, intended to gather personal information and hijack users computers? Could Operation Last Resort have been the phishing expedition to end all phishing expeditions, designed to enrich powerful cyber criminals?

Instead of receiving a rational response that resulted in a productive dialog, several members of the hacktivist community decided to attack Anonymous X-SecT. They claimed X-SecT betrayed the movement and proceeded to hack their websites and Facebook pages. Obscenity laced messages were directed at X-SecT, along with a good deal of personal slander.

Clearly, the response from a vocal minority of the community was to try and shoot the messenger. Instead of addressing the issues X-SecT raised, and inspiring dedicated activists to work more effectively for change as Anonymous X-SecT had intended, a small group decided to impose a heckler’s veto on their own allies.

All of these events took place in full view of the public on the Internet, and eventually came to the attention of The Inquisitr’s Wolff Bachner, who wrote a detailed article about Operation Last Resort and the issues raised by Anonymous X-SecT.

After the article was published by The Inquisitr on Thursday, January 31, 2001, several reader comments were posted below the article that criticized Anonymous X-SecT, including one that contained a threat to take over X-SecT’s Facebook pages and groups. Co-incidentally, The Inquisitr received a tweet from Anonymous X-SecT, offering to sit down for an exclusive interview. The group said they wanted to clear the air and explain why they went public with their criticism of Operation Last Resort.

As a rule, Internet activists are not overly fond of the press, and they rarely grant interviews. The Inquisitr decided to accept the offer, and in the wee hours of the morning on Saturday, February 2, 2013, Wolff Bachner conducted a no-holds barred, one-on-one conversation with Xero Flux, the spokesperson of Anonymous X-SecT.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/(...)#qUeS21B1FhJDMfLH.99

twitter:

vavo12 twitterde op zondag 03-02-2013 om 14:14:18 Please Spam-block @opblitzkrieg now! They spread viruses and steal your private data. This is a #Anonymous action for #privacy! #fascism reageer retweet

quote:

#OpLastResort : Anonymous Hackers releases 4000 bankers data from Federal Reserve computers

Anonymous hackers have published login, private information and cell phone numbers of over 4000 bankers data from Federal Reserve computers, in the name of its new Operation Last Resort (#OpLastResort) campaign, demanding U.S. computer crime law reform. The information appears to belong to presidents, vice presidents, managing officers, CEOs, SVPs, and others.

Hackers published the data on Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center (ACJIC) website after hacking it. The page extension URL is titled, "oops-we-did-it-again." ZDNet said,"Anonymous stated in its first Operation Last Resort defacement last friday (ussc.gov) it had infiltrated multiple federal websites over a period of time."