Anonops #6: Anonymous en de MO-revoluties

quote:

Backtrace Security Exposed

quote:

backtracesecurity.com .net and .org

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Rubenstein, John d72xy57g328@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com

John Rubenstein is 'Housespider' in Jennifer Emick's fail skype troll group aka The Treehouse.
The Treehouse has been suspected for months as being behind the anonops doxing and other doxing of anons.

quote:

After two years of making accusations, they failed to provide one shred of evidence and
were counter-trolled hard.

quote:

We are collating dox on Drifter and other backtrace failtards.
More dox will be forthcoming.

quote:

Unfortunately for Backtrace Securities we know that many of these entries are incorrect. There are a couple explanations, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as to how they could be certain enough in their facts to publish something this inaccurate:

quote:

De schaduwzijde van internet

Weer knaagt iemand aan het idee dat internet en snelle communicatie democratisering bevorderen. “Just let these people know what blogging and connectivity is and all of a sudden they will ask for more democracy“, zoals Evgeny Morozov, een wetenschapper uit Wit-Rusland verbonden aan het Program on Liberation Technology van de Stanford Universiteit, in een heerlijk geïllustreerde lezing neerbuigend poneert. “Cyber-utopians“, noemt hij de stam die zo denkt.

Niet alleen zijn samenlevingen iets ingewikkelder, internet biedt ook regeringen mooie mogelijkheden een bevolking te controleren. Twitter accounts zijn openbaar dus elke oproep tot protest is te volgen. In Thailand kan het publiek websites die geen respect tonen voor het koningshuis bij een speciale site aangeven waarop ze onmiddellijk worden gesloten. In Iran gebruiken de autoriteiten het internet om via crowdsourcing eerder gefotografeerde demonstranten te identificeren.

Ofwel, we verwarren bedoeld gebruik van technologie met het werkelijke gebruik. Ook aan de zijde van de burger/consument moeten we ons niet in de mens vergissen. Jongeren zijn niet per definitie allemaal voor revolutie en democratie. Tegenover de enkeling die een rapport van Human Rights Watch zullen downloaden staan volksstammen die liever online porno bekijken. Ook jongeren Ofwel, democratisering heeft met heel veel politieke, culturele, sociale en economische factoren te maken.

Morozov is niet de eerste die de rol van internet in een ander daglicht zet. In een veel besproken (ook op deze site) artikel in The New Yorker in oktober 2010 benadrukte Malcolm Gladwell de maatschappelijk omstandigheden die nodig zijn voor, bijvoorbeeld, een revolutie, zoals solidariteit en doorzettingsvermogen.

Morozov gaat echter nog een stap verder met het aanstippen hoe de autoriteiten internet juist voor het tegenovergestelde doel kunnen gebruiken: Big Brother is watching you, zogezegd. De titel van Morozov’s eerder dit jaar verschenen boek: The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom

RSA Animate - The Internet in Society, Empowering or Censoring Citizens

quote:

TOR Made for USG Open Source Spying Says Maker

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:57:39 -0400
From: Michael Reed <reed[at]inet.org>
To: tor-talk[at]lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Iran cracks down on web dissident technology

On 03/22/2011 12:08 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Joe Btfsplk<joebtfsplk[at]gmx.com> wrote:
>> Why would any govt create something their enemies can easily use against
>> them, then continue funding it once they know it helps the enemy, if a govt
>> has absolutely no control over it? It's that simple. It would seem a very
>> bad idea. Stop looking at it from a conspiracy standpoint& consider it as
>> a common sense question.
> Because it helps the government as well. An anonymity network that
> only the US government uses is fairly useless. One that everyone uses
> is much more useful, and if your enemies use it as well that's very
> good, because then they can't cut off access without undoing their own
> work.

BINGO, we have a winner! The original *QUESTION* posed that led to the
invention of Onion Routing was, "Can we build a system that allows for
bi-directional communications over the Internet where the source and
destination cannot be determined by a mid-point?" The *PURPOSE* was for
DoD / Intelligence usage (open source intelligence gathering, covering
of forward deployed assets, whatever). Not helping dissidents in
repressive countries. Not assisting criminals in covering their
electronic tracks. Not helping bit-torrent users avoid MPAA/RIAA
prosecution. Not giving a 10 year old a way to bypass an anti-porn
filter. Of course, we knew those would be other unavoidable uses for
the technology, but that was immaterial to the problem at hand we were
trying to solve (and if those uses were going to give us more cover
traffic to better hide what we wanted to use the network for, all the
better...I once told a flag officer that much to his chagrin). I should
know, I was the recipient of that question from David, and Paul was
brought into the mix a few days later after I had sketched out a basic
(flawed) design for the original Onion Routing.

The short answer to your question of "Why would the government do this?"
is because it is in the best interests of some parts of the government
to have this capability... Now enough of the conspiracy theories...

-Michael
_________________

24 March 2011

A sends:

From: A
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:41:41 +0000
Subject: Cryptome Fwd: Re: Fwd: The onion TOR network
To: cryptome[at]earthlink.net

Following the publication of the email extract on TOR, I asked
the EFF what they made of it. Here it is. You can of course publish it.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Rebecca Jeschke <rebecca[at]eff.org>
Date: 23 March 2011 21:29
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: The onion TOR network
To: A

Hi A. This is from Senior Staff Technologist Seth Schoen. Thanks -- Rebecca

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: Fwd: The onion TOR network
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:15:24 -0700
From: Seth David Schoen <schoen[at]eff.org>
To: Rebecca Jeschke <rebecca[at]eff.org>
CC: chris <chris[at]eff.org>, Peter Eckersley <pde[at]eff.org>,
Seth Schoen <schoen[at]eff.org>

Rebecca Jeschke writes:

any thoughts on this?

It's totally true that the military people who invented Tor were
thinking about how to create a system that would protect military
communications. The current iteration of that is described at

https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en#military

right on the Tor home page.

However, the Tor developers also became clear early on that the
system wouldn't protect military communications well unless it had
a very diverse set of users. Elsewhere in that same e-mail
discussion, Mike Perry (a current Tor developer) alludes to this:

https://lists.torproject.(...)11-March/019898.html

In fact, the best known way we have right now to improve anonymity
is to support more users, and more *types* of users. See:

http://www.freehaven.net/doc/wupss04/usability.pdf
http://freehaven.net/~arma/slides-weis06.pdf

The first link is to a paper called "Anonymity Loves Company", which
explains the issue this way:

No organization can build this infrastructure for its own sole use.
If a single corporation or government agency were to build a private
network to protect its operations, any connections entering or
leaving that network would be obviously linkable to the controlling
organization. The members and operations of that agency would be
easier, not harder, to distinguish.

Thus, to provide anonymity to any of its users, the network must
accept traffic from external users, so the various user groups can
blend together.

You can read the entire (ongoing) discussion about government funding
for Tor development via

https://lists.torproject.(...)11-March/thread.html

(search for "[tor-talk] Iran cracks down on web dissident technology").

--

Seth Schoen
Senior Staff Technologist schoen[at]eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/
454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110 +1 415 436 9333 x107

Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Iran cracks down on web dissident technology
From: A3
To: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Cc: A2, cypherpunks[at]al-qaeda.net

On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 17:43 -0400, John Young wrote:
> Fucking amazing admission. No conspiracy theory needed.

Wasn't this already very common knowledge?

Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Iran cracks down on web dissident technology
To: A3, A2, cypherpunks[at]al-qaeda.net
From: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>

That's what the Eff-folks advocating TOR are saying. And point to a
file on Torproject.org. See:

http://cryptome.org/0003/tor-spy.htm

However, this appears to be a giant evasion perhaps a subterfuge,
even reminds of what Big Boys say when customers learn they are
siphoning customer data. Read the privacy policy the lawyer-advised
apologists bark, and upon reading the privacy policy see that it only
emphasizes the subterfuge. Openly admitting siphoning is supposed
to make it okay because everyone does it under cover of lockstep
privacy policy. Reject that.

If the Tor operators really know what they are being used for, then
they should admit to being agents of the USG, as Michael Reed had
the guts to do.

Claiming this US spying role for Tor is well known is a crock of slop,
but then spies lie all the time and care not a whit that they peddle
shit for eaters of it. If you believe them and like what they do then
don't shilly-shally, just do what Michael Reed did but others are
too ashamed to do after having been duped since 1996.

If Reed's precedent for honesty is followed, there will be an
admission that the Internet was invented for spying by its inventor.
And then cryptography and other comsec tools. And then cellphones
and the like. Hold on now, this is getting out of hand, the apologists
will bellow, everybody has always known that there is no privacy
in digital world.

Actually, no, they did not. And those who knew keep their Janusian
mouths writhing to reap the rewards of deception. Now that is a truth
everyone knows. No conspiracy theory needed.

quote:

Video: #Anonymous Addresses The Bilderberg Group (by Anonymous0890) #lulz You know who you are. http://tumblr.com/xec1wr7sxj

Anonymous Addresses The Bilderberg Group

quote:

Think4Freedom Ano Nymous
Do not mess with #Anonymiss http://z0r.de/538 #Anonymous Via @blackxanonymous #Anonops

quote:

Hackers step up attacks on security firms

The Internet's security infrastructure is under attack. Two major incidents against Comodo and RSA have raised the question of not just whether the enterprise can withstand hacker attacks but if the security firms we all count on to guard the infrastructure can protect themselves.

Earlier this week, Internet security firm Comodo revealed it had been tricked into minting nine high-value digital certificates that could allow the attackers to create fraudulent sites that fool users into thinking they are visiting Google, Yahoo, Skype or Microsoft's Live service. The sting on Comodo follows a more serious attack on RSA, which netted the infiltrators unspecified information that could compromise the security of the company's one-time password product SecurID.

These breaches follow other recent high-profile security events, including Anonymous's campaign to compromise HBGary Federal and Stuxnet's use of stolen code-signing certificates against Iran's nuclear capability. Altogether, it's undeniable that attackers now see the value in focusing on those companies and products that provide defense.

While the Comodo attack, at least, is thought to have limited impact, the RSA compromise could be more serious. However, both breaches point to a need by security firms to re-evaluate their approach to protecting themselves and their valuable intellectual property, says Anup Ghosh, founder and chief scientist of browser security firm Invincea. "How is it that the foundational elements of security are being compromised?" he asks.

"We have to worry whether we are going to be targeted next -- we, as in the royal we," Ghosh says. "And all we're really doing is doubling down on the technologies that was built in the late '90s and address yesterday's problems rather than the way that these attacks are actually perpetrated."

Hackers have always sought out corporate intel, but in a presentation at RSA, Josh Corman, research director of the 451 Group, argued that attackers are increasing their focus on intellectual property, at a time companies are becoming more proficient with protecting their custodial data, such as credit cards numbers and personal-identifying information. These factors point to a need by companies -- especially security firms -- to learn how to better protect their IP, he says.

"What is now required is for us to ask what kind of evolution and changes do we need to thwart those attackers who are more talented and more persistent," he says. "We can mock these companies for their mistakes -- or we can talk about the criminals and the perpetrators."

This article, "Hackers step up attacks on security firms," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Get the first word on what the important tech news really means with the InfoWorld Tech Watch blog. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.

quote:

Democrat urges investigation into federal security contractors

Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia is seeking an investigation into whether government money was used by three data security firms involved in a proposal to harass liberal critics of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Reporting from Washington—
A Democratic congressman is seeking an investigation into whether government money was used by three security contractors involved in a proposal to track and harass liberal critics of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia plans to send letters Monday to the Defense and Justice departments, as well as the head of the intelligence community, requesting a review of the companies' federal contracts. All three firms are government contractors with security clearance.

Johnson wrote that he was concerned the companies "may have violated the law and/or their federal contracts by conspiring to use technologies developed for U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism purposes against American citizens and organizations on behalf of private actors."

The inquiry stems from email correspondence between the three data security firms — HBGary Federal, Palantir Technologies and Berico Technologies — proposing surveillance and sabotage of liberal and labor activists in an effort to win a contract with Hunton & Williams, a law firm representing the Chamber of Commerce.

The security firms came together in a group they dubbed "Team Themis," apparently after the Greek goddess of law and order.

Details of the proposal, which included planting false information to embarrass anti-chamber groups and creating dossiers on activists, complete with photographs and family references, were leaked this year by the hacker group Anonymous.

The chamber said it was not aware of the proposals and called the tactics "abhorrent."

HBGary Federal declined to comment. A company source said Palantir was aware of the congressman's request and believed the agencies would do what they could to comply. Neither Berico nor Hunton & Williams returned calls seeking comment. In the past, all have denied wrongdoing.

Johnson and 19 other Democrats this month called on Republican leaders to investigate Hunton & Williams and Team Themis for possible violations of federal law, including forgery and computer fraud.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, declined to pursue the matter, saying in a statement, "While I appreciate Mr. Johnson's letter, it is the role of the Justice Department to determine whether a criminal investigation is warranted."

Johnson said an investigation was necessary to determine whether Americans were sufficiently shielded from technologies meant to target enemies abroad.

"This is uncharted territory when we're dealing in the cyber world," Johnson said. "It's a dangerous place. It can be a place where liberties of American people are threatened or taken away."

quote:

Op maandag 28 maart 2011 14:51 schreef truepositive het volgende:
The plot thickens

Vandaag was toch ook operation ESR?

quote:

How General Electric avoids paying taxes

In a jaw-dropping exposé in The New York Times, David Kocieniewski explains how General Electric, the country's largest corporation, has managed to accumulate $26 billion in the last five years while not just paying zero taxes but receiving a net tax benefit of $4.1 billion from the IRS. The author dives deep into the company's regulatory filings and interviews a number of tax law and policy experts. Below, we've pulled out from the multi-page report the various schemes and tactics the corporation uses to keep exploiting the tax system. It's worth reading in full here.

-Lobbying The company spent more than $200 million in the last ten years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. One of its major lobbying coups includes the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act, which allowed it to "defer taxes on overseas profits from leasing planes to airlines." That law saved the company more than $1 billion just three years after it was enacted.

-Greasing Palms When GE needed to change Rep. Charlie Rangel's mind about support for a key tax break, it awarded $11 million to various schools in Rangel's district. Afterward, Rangel, who then headed the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, pledged his support for the tax provision. He says the donation had no effect on his decision. Rangel has also been under intense scrutiny recently for ethics violations unrelated to GE.

-Anointing Tax Kings At many of its major manufacturing facilities across the world, GE has elevated the role of tax strategist to an executive decision-making post. The company's tax department has expanded to 975 employees.

-A Culture of Tax Avoidance The company's mission statement of GE's tax department urges employees to "evenly" divide their time between obeying the law and "looking to exploit opportunities to reduce tax.”

-Leasing and Lending Abroad In the late '90s GE won passage of a tax provision known as "active financing" allowing it to "avoid taxes on lending income from abroad," that in turn gave the company an array of tax credits and write-offs used to offset taxes on its U.S. operations.

-Cutting Its Domestic Work Force "Since 2002, the company has eliminated a fifth of its work force in the United States while increasing overseas employment," writes the Times. "In that time, G.E.’s accumulated offshore profits have risen to $92 billion from $15 billion."

Update: GE has posted a response to the article here