Anonops #6: Anonymous en de MO-revoluties

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.