Anonops #17: Lood en dolfijnen?

Its Over 9000!!! [Original Video and Audio]

LOLPRAH: OVER 9000 PENISES!

Tom Cruise Scientology Video - ( Original UNCUT )

Message to Scientology

Operation Payback #Anonymous Message RE: ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, Internet Censorship & Copyright

twitter:

BarrettBrownLOL twitterde op maandag 03-09-2012 om 02:16:10 And all this because man put in motion systems that returned to enslave him #ProjectPM reageer retweet

Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church Website LIVE

quote:

http://www.thinq.co.uk/20(...)persecute-anonymous/
NATO leaders have been warned that WikiLeaks-loving 'hacktivist' collective Anonymous could pose a threat to member states' security, following recent attacks on the US Chamber of Commerce and defence contractor HBGary - and promise to 'persecute' its members.

quote:

From a single hashtag, a protest circled the world

(Reuters) - It all started innocuously enough with a July 13 blog post urging people to #OccupyWallStreet, as though such a thing (Twitter hashtag and all) were possible.

quote:

Gabriella Coleman Assistant Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication

Trained as an anthropologist, Gabriella (Biella) Coleman examines the ethics of online collaboration/institutions as well as the role of the law and digital media in sustaining various forms of political activism. Between 2001-2003 she conducted ethnographic research on computer hackers primarily in San Francisco, the Netherlands, as well as those hackers who work on the largest free software project, Debian. Her first book, "Coding Freedom: The Aesthetics and the Ethics of Hacking" is forthcoming with Princeton University Press and she is currently working on a new book on Anonymous and digital activism. She is the recipient of numerous grants, fellowships, and awards, including ones from the National Science Foundation, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Social Science Research Council and the Institute for Advanced Study.

quote:

Anonymous: From the Lulz to Collective Action

^{Gabriella Coleman, April 6 2011}

quote:

Our Weirdness Is Free

The logic of Anonymous—online army, agent of chaos, and seeker of justice.

_{by Gabriella Coleman, [01.13.2012]}

quote:

Coding Fredom [PDF]

The Aesthetics and the Ethics of Hacking

^{Gabriella Coleman 2013}

quote:

Anonymous And The War Over The Internet

This article is the first in a two-part series tracing the development of the amorphous online community known as Anonymous, pranksters who have become a force in global affairs.

^{The Huffington Post, Saki Knafo. Posted: 1/30/12 12:20 PM ET | Updated: 2/1/12 07:36 PM ET}

quote:

Anonymous Shuts Down Japanese Airport Website After "The Cove" Actor Is Arrested

Members of the Anonymous hacker collective have launched DDoS attacks on the website of the Narita airport in Tokyo to protest the "allegedly" illegal arrest of Ric O'Barry, the main star of "The Cove."


Besides being one of the men that helped train the dolphins used on the set of the famous "Flipper" TV show, Ric O'Barry's main claim to fame is his appearance in Oscar-winning "The Cove" documentary, which depicts the horrible dolphin slaughter that takes place annually in the town of Taiji, Japan.


Ric O'Barry denied entry to Japan, arrested afterwards

According to the Dolphin Project, a non-profit charitable organization Ric's part of, the TV actor was detained by Japanese authorities on January 18, when he arrived at Tokyo's Narita airport.

Authorities refused Ric the right to enter the country, and after declining to leave, they placed him under arrest at a deportees facility, where he remains even now.

"O’Barry was repeatedly interrogated and placed in a deportees’ facility, similar to a jail, where he has been held behind bars ever since," a statement from the Dolphin Project reads. "He has not received proper nourishment, his only food coming from the airport’s 7 Eleven convenience store, and sleep has been minimal at best."

This is not O'Barry's first time in a Japanese prison, having spent another night in jail last August, after he didn't have his passport on him. In that case, Japanese police were not willing to search his car for his passport, choosing to keep him for a night in jail before eventually finding his passport and setting him free.

O'Barry has stated many times that, after "The Cove" documentary was released, he has been subject to harassment from Japanese authorities, who have done their best to deter him from returning to the country.


Anonymous comes to the rescue

After the incident was leaked to the press, members of the Anonymous hacker group came to Ric's aid and launched DDoS attacks on the Narita airport's website. First attacks were launched at around 09:00 PM on Friday, January 22, and the website was restored the following day at 01:00 AM.

This is not the first time Anonymous attacked the Narita airport website, having previously taken it down in October 2015.

Anonymous has a long-lasting feud with Japanese authorities, especially for their habit of hunting and killing endangered specials of whales and dolphins. Softpedia has written many times on Anonymous' #OpWhales and #OpKillingBay campaigns in the past.

Bron: news.softpedia.com

quote:

Op maandag 25 januari 2016 18:07 schreef Metalfrost het volgende:
Typo in de OP (en waarschijnlijk alle OPs in de reeks)

[..]

'verspreid' is het voltooid deelwoord van 'verspreiden', de letter 'e' komt niet voor als hoofdletter in het hulpmiddel TaXiKoFSCHiP, dus met een 'd' op het eind.

quote:

Klimaatbewuste hackers beweren NASA in de tang te hebben

quote:

Zelfs voor een filmscript klinkt het ongeloofwaardig: een groep anonieme hackers heeft twee jaar lang gevoelige informatie van de Amerikaanse ruimteorganisatie NASA gestolen en dreigt die openbaar te maken en een kostbaar onbemand vliegtuig te laten crashen - tenzij de NASA volledige openheid geeft over het manipuleren van het klimaat door het kunstmatig fabriceren van regen.


Toch is dat precies wat hackersgroep AnonSec via sociale media beweert. De groep zou sinds 2013 via in het geniep gekochte inloggegevens de systemen van NASA zijn binnengedrongen. Jarenlang hebben de hackers informatie buitgemaakt, zoals de namen en adressen van 2.400 medewerkers, gegevens van meer dan tweeduizend NASA-vluchten en zeshonderd video's van missies. Die informatie wil AnonSec nu openbaar maken als NASA niet binnen een maand aan de eisen voldoet.

Bron: www.volkskrant.nl

quote:

Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data]

This text file (a pruned version of which is attached to this post) and data release has been used by many groups that promote the "chemtrails" theory as "proof" that chemtrails are real, and that there's some kind of secret geoengineering program going on.

Here's the facts behind these claims.

Bron: www.metabunk.org

Anonymous Message to the 1's Afraid

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.

twitter:

YourAnonCentral twitterde op vrijdag 05-02-2016 om 04:26:33 Anonymous Operation all can participate in. #OpGlasgowKiss #TurnAwayReturnOfKings #ReturnOfKings #RooshV https://t.co/dxIO4PzrYF reageer retweet

quote:

Return of Kings rallies cancelled over safety concerns - British Columbia - CBC News

A controversial U.S. blogger who has published material suggesting rape inside a private home should be legal says he has cancelled rallies planned across the globe this weekend over safety concerns.

"I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend on Feb. 6, especially since most of the meetups cannot be made private in time," Roosh V wrote on his blog on Wednesday.

"While I can't stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meet-ups."

He apologized to his supporters and a listing of locations has been removed from the website.

"I'm moving to save as many of these meet-ups as I can before Saturday so that men can still meet in private away from a loud, obnoxious, dishonest, and potentially violent mob," he added.

The blog, founded by Daryush (Roosh V) Valizadeh in 2012, describes itself as a blog for heterosexual, "masculine" men.

It preaches something called "neomasculinity," which supports traditional gender roles — including the beliefs that a woman's value "significantly depends on her fertility and beauty," and that the patriarchy is "a superior societal system that catered to the innate abilities of the sexes."

The rallies, which were planned in several Canadian cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Calgary and Toronto, were denounced by several mayors.

.@ReturnofKings Your pro-rape, misogynistic, homophobic garbage is not welcome in Ottawa​ ​#its2016 ​​#TurnAwayReturnOfKings

What he said. Goes double for Calgary. Thanks for your leadership on this, Jim. https://t.co/xyD7T1o1wA

No place for intolerance, hatred & misogyny in Toronto. I'm with you @nenshi @jimwatsonottawa #TurnAwayReturnofKings https://t.co/ys8FWjN8js

Hatred and misogyny have absolutely no place in Vancouver or anywhere else in this world #TurnAwayReturnOfKings https://t.co/Xlbia4YjfH

Not acceptable in #Edmonton. Nor, I suspect, anywhere in this country in this day and age. #TurnAwayReturnOfKings https://t.co/wnV6RcCkEe

The hashtag #turnawayreturnofkings was trending in Canada on Tuesday, with some suggesting online that they wanted to show up at the planned rallies with protests.

©2016 CBC/Radio-Canada. All rights reserved
Bron: www.cbc.ca

quote:

Not so cool now! Pro-rape pick-up artist pictured in a sweat-stained T-shirt at the door of his mother's home (where he lives in the BASEMENT!)

quote:

This is the man at the center of a worldwide storm after advocating legalizing rape on private property - in a sweat-stained T-shirt at the door of his mother's house.

Daryush 'Roosh' Valizadeh, 36, the self-proclaimed 'King of Masculinity' called police after receiving death threats from around the world and canceled a series of 'tribal meetings' in 45 countries set for this weekend.

Valizadeh, who is at the center of public protests at home and in Canada, Australia and the UK, is on record as advocating women be banned from voting, describing a woman's value as dependent on her 'fertility and beauty', and stating that women with eating disorders make the best girlfriends.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

quote:

Wahrheit unerwünscht: Merkel-Regime sperrt Facebookseite von Anonymous

Nachdem Anonymous entlarvende Dokumente von Innenministerium, Polizei und BKA und leakte, sperrten Behörden die Facebookseite der Aktivisten. Justizminister Heiko „Orwell“ Maas hat versprochen, Facebook jetzt mit Denunzianten zu durchseuchen, um jeglicher Kritik am Establishment eine weitere Plattform zu entziehen. Und er hat Wort gehalten. Mit Anetta Kahane engagierte er seit neuesten eine ehemalige Mitarbeiterin der DDR-Staatssicherheit. Im Auftrag von Merkel hat die Ex-Stasi-Agentin Kahane nun über 100 Blockwarte angeheuert, die ab sofort, unter dem Deckmantel gegen Hassbeiträge vorgehen zu wollen, unliebsame Kommentare und Beiträge auf Facebook zensieren. Was ein „Hasskommentar“ oder ein „Hassbeitrag“ ist, wird allerdings nicht durch ein Gesetz definiert, sondern nach freien Ermessen festgelegt, von Maas und seinen willigen Zensur-Schergen. Genau auf diese hat man nun die deutschsprachige Seite Anonymous, mit 1,8 Millionen Abonnenten, mundtot gemacht. Was war passiert?

Bron: www.compact-online.de

quote:

Leaked police files contain guarantees disciplinary records will be kept secret | US news | The Guardian

Guardian analysis of dozens of contracts revealed by hackers shows more than a third allow or require destruction of civilian complaint records

Contracts between police and city authorities, leaked after hackers breached the website of the country’s biggest law enforcement union, contain guarantees that disciplinary records and complaints made against officers are kept secret or even destroyed.

A Guardian analysis of dozens of contracts obtained from the servers of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) found that more than a third featured clauses allowing – and often mandating – the destruction of records of civilian complaints, departmental investigations, or disciplinary actions after a negotiated period of time.

The review also found that 30% of the 67 leaked police contracts, which were struck between cities and police unions, included provisions barring public access to records of past civilian complaints, departmental investigations, and disciplinary actions.

Samuel Walker, a professor in criminology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said there was “no justification” for the cleansing of officers’ records, which could contain details of their use of force against civilians.

“The public has a right to know,” Walker said. “If there was a controversial beating, we ought to know what action was actually taken. Was it a reprimand? A suspension?”

Walker said that while an officer’s whole personnel file should not be readily available to the public outside of court proceedings, records of disciplinary action should be.

The leaked contracts became publicly accessible last week, when hackers breached the Fraternal Order of Police’s website and put around 2.5GB worth of its files online. These provide a glimpse into the influence of police unions, which Black Lives Matter activists have accused of impeding misconduct investigations, particularly after the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Maryland in April.

Related: Hackers post private files of America's biggest police union

The documents date back almost two decades and include agreements from unions such as the Policemen’s Benevolent Association and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. Many contain numerous recurring clauses that slow down misconduct investigations, prevent public access to complaints and disciplinary records, and enable the destruction of complaints and disciplinary records after a negotiated period of time.

At least as recently as 2007, if an officer in Independence, Missouri, was “involved in a shooting incident”, that officer could not be interrogated for at least 12 hours nor be “treated a suspect” unless local authorities thought there was reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime had been committed. This protocol was mandated in the local police union’s contract in a clause specifically designed for “officer-involved shooting investigations”.

In recent years, Independence has made headlines for cases of police brutality and police shootings.

From small towns in Nebraska and New Jersey to major cities like Cincinnati, Ohio and Jacksonville, Florida, “expungement” clauses allowed for records of formal investigations and written reprimands to be “purged” after a few years or, in some cases, months.

Chuck Canterbury, the FOP president, said that such contract provisions were designed to protect the due process rights of police officers. “Disciplinary files are removed because they affect career advancement,” said Canterbury. “People make mistakes and if they learn from them, they should be removed. This is standard HR practice.”

Other deals contained provisions focused on blocking public access to records that were preserved. A 2006-2008 contract from Burlington Township, NJ, for example, required the police department’s Investigations Commander to keep formal complaints and internal investigation documents “in a locked file”, barring access to all except the department’s investigations commander and chief law
enforcement officer.

Similarly, in Ralston, Nebraska, the 2009-2012 FOP contract created a “Police Officers’ Bill of Rights”, which said: “Unless agreed to by the Officer, the City shall not divulge the reason for any disciplinary action that is not appealed to the Civil Service Commission.” The city was also bound to “make every reasonable effort”
to prevent a photograph of the officer from being released to the public or news media.

Among five other FOP contracts, where such confidentiality clauses could not be inserted because of state open records laws, several included language seemingly designed to help officers beat public records requests.

One 2009-2011 FOP contract from Hamilton County, Nebraska, initiates a mandatory five-step response to public records requests, in which the department would ascertain the identity of the person making the request, provide the officer with a summary of the would-be released information, guarantee the officer five days to object to the request, and allow the officer a departmental hearing to make the case that the release could threaten his or her personal security.

Devon M Jacob, a civil rights attorney and former police officer, said: “These are public employees, so their performance should be available to the public. There’s no reason matters of waste or wrongdoing should be kept away from the public. I disagree with this idea that unsustained complaints or investigations don’t matter.”

Speaking to the rationale for sealing off investigatory and complaint records, Canterbury, the FOP president, said: “It’s mostly the false or unsustained complaints that officers feel unduly hurt their careers. Nobody expunges guilty adjudicated use-of-forces, so if these acts are found unsustained in the first place, why should they continue to have any bearing on officers?”
In Jacksonville, Florida, however, according to a 2008-2009 FOP contract, if an officer were to receive a written reprimand with suspension or loss of pay, after a sustained formal investigation, that action would have to be purged after five years.

Often, even substantiated use-of-force allegations fail even to garner penalties as high as a reprimand with suspension. To put this in perspective, even in cases between 2010 and 2015 in which the NYPD’s office of the inspector general confirmed that officers had used unwarranted excessive force, officers were given no discipline 35.6% of the time.

According to the contracts, however, most of the investigations into police misconduct are led by officers’ supervisors or investigators within the department – a process that leaves some reform advocates skeptical. One leaked 2004-2006 contract from Worthington, Ohio, said that any city official who received a citizen complaint about a police officer must advise the complainant to go to the police department instead. “If the citizen does not wish to contact the Division of Police,” the contract said, “City staff should contact the Division of Police in a timely manner and advise a supervisor of the complaint.”

Alex Vitale, an associate professor of sociology at Brooklyn College, said such contract measures in effect undermined the possibility of robust civilian review boards for police. “You could pass a law to create a civilian oversight commission, but that law can’t supersede what’s in the contract,” said Vitale. “They just want to make clear what the process is and make sure there aren’t independent investigations. The police think ‘no one understands what we do’. It’s all part of this ‘us against the world’ mentality that dominates police thinking.”

Canterbury said the FOP rejects the idea of civilian review boards. “Departments do much better than civilian review boards because civilians have no knowledge of law enforcement or expertise on procedures,” he said. “Police departments do a very good job on internal reviews, plus we already have external review processes like local governments, prosecutors’ officers, and grand juries.”

Black Lives Matter activists argue, however, that there are too many conflicts of interest for the police to impartially investigate their own members. “Beyond the role nepotism and cronyism continues to play in the corruption of law enforcement, there is an inherent distrust of the police’s ability to keep communities safe,” said Delaine Powerful, an organizer in the Black Youth Project. “We cannot trust a system born out of slave patrols and night watches to conduct its own criminal investigations into unnecessary and unwarranted force by police.”

Ron Hampton, a former director of the National Black Police Association and a police officer in Washington DC, said: “People just don’t feel that the police can investigate themselves thoroughly or impartially.

“When we see all of this stuff on film, then it goes to the internal investigation and grand jury, etc, and then no indictment, no trial ... I don’t see how you can have trust in a process that doesn’t work for you.”

Bron: www.theguardian.com

quote:

Anonymous Hackers Target North Korea in Response to Satellite Launch

Hackers associated with the Anonymous collective have attacked North Korean state websites in response to the country’s latest satellite launch.

The New World Hackers targeted three websites hours after the launch on Sunday, with the group claiming up to 200 sites were affected as a result of the attacks.

“Our main motive for these attacks was to stop communications between the satellite and the websites, leaving the government wondering why they can’t launch a test, or possibly even a real missile strike at any point in time,” a member of the group tells Newsweek.

“If you attack a site linked to a satellite that constantly updates off of that site, you’re really disrupting something somewhere. We at least slowed down their progress.”

It is not clear if communications with the satellite were affected but proof of sites being knocked offline by a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack was shared with Newsweek. This method of attack overloads the servers used to host websites with traffic from multiple sources.

New World Hackers has previously been credited with the largest DDoS attack ever carried out, using its “BangStresser” tool to disable all of the BBC’s websites for a period of several hours in December 2015.

The same tool has also been used to repeatedly disrupt Donald Trump’s campaign website, as well as dozens of sites associated with the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) as part of Anonymous’s OpISIS campaign. New World Hackers has said that while it takes part in certain Anonymous operations and supports the hacktivist collective, it operates independently of the group.

North Korea has defended the satellite launch as a way of tracking weather patterns. However, the U.S. and other countries have accused Pyongyang of using the launch as a front for a ballistic missile test.

“North Korea continues to develop their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, and it is the responsibility of our alliance to maintain a strong defense against those threats,” General Curtis M. Scaparrotti, U.S. Forces Korea commander, said in a statement.

The United Nations Security Council also “strongly condemned” the launch and promised to take punitive steps against North Korea.

Bron: europe.newsweek.com

quote:

Anonymous makes good on #OpAfrica promise, targets SA government websites - htxt.africa

Earlier this week Anonymous proclaimed that under the handle of Operation Africa, it will be targeting African governments over corruption, internet censorship and child labour.

Starting with Uganda and Rwanda it hacked into several government websites, and inferred that South Africa could be next.

The veiled threat seems to have materialised, after South Africa’s State Security Agency (SSA) released a warning and advisory through an email statement.

In the mail sent to subscribers, the Computer Security Incident Response Team said that “Hacktivists Anonymous hacked a South African Government Department under the operation #OpAfrica and publicised the information from their database to a website.”

Capture

A hacker going by the Twitter handle @TobitowTHA has released a rather extensive list of websites that have been hacked.

Going alphabetically, the hacker posted websites listed started with ‘A’ and at the time of publications released the names of websites starting with the letter ‘C’. The websites listed are private in nature, and don’t seem to have any connection to the government.

Softpedia, however, is reporting that Anonymous members claim to have hacked a local site called V-Report and procured data on government employees, which they then posted online.

“We had information about 33,000+ job seekers,” the hackers told Sofpedia. “But we just prefer to publish government officers data.”

Bron: www.htxt.co.za

quote:

Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge - ScienceAlert

Welcome to the Pirate Bay of science.

A researcher in Russia has made more than 48 million journal articles - almost every single peer-reviewed paper every published - freely available online. And she's now refusing to shut the site down, despite a court injunction and a lawsuit from Elsevier, one of the world's biggest publishers.

For those of you who aren't already using it, the site in question is Sci-Hub, and it's sort of like a Pirate Bay of the science world. It was established in 2011 by neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan, who was frustrated that she couldn't afford to access the articles needed for her research, and it's since gone viral, with hundreds of thousands of papers being downloaded daily. But at the end of last year, the site was ordered to be taken down by a New York district court - a ruling that Elbakyan has decided to fight, triggering a debate over who really owns science.


"Payment of $32 is just insane when you need to skim or read tens or hundreds of these papers to do research. I obtained these papers by pirating them," Elbakyan told Torrent Freak last year. "Everyone should have access to knowledge regardless of their income or affiliation. And that’s absolutely legal."

If it sounds like a modern day Robin Hood struggle, that's because it kinda is. But in this story, it's not just the poor who don't have access to scientific papers - journal subscriptions have become so expensive that leading universities such as Harvard and Cornell have admitted they can no longer afford them. Researchers have also taken a stand - with 15,000 scientists vowing to boycott publisher Elsevier in part for its excessive paywall fees.

Don't get us wrong, journal publishers have also done a whole lot of good - they've encouraged better research thanks to peer review, and before the Internet, they were crucial to the dissemination of knowledge.

But in recent years, more and more people are beginning to question whether they're still helping the progress of science. In fact, in some cases, the 'publish or perish' mentality is creating more problems than solutions, with a growing number of predatory publishers now charging researchers to have their work published - often without any proper peer review process or even editing.

"They feel pressured to do this," Elbakyan wrote in an open letter to the New York judge last year. "If a researcher wants to be recognised, make a career - he or she needs to have publications in such journals."

That's where Sci-Hub comes into the picture. The site works in two stages. First of all when you search for a paper, Sci-Hub tries to immediately download it from fellow pirate database LibGen. If that doesn't work, Sci-Hub is able to bypass journal paywalls thanks to a range of access keys that have been donated by anonymous academics (thank you, science spies).

This means that Sci-Hub can instantly access any paper published by the big guys, including JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, and deliver it to you for free within seconds. The site then automatically sends a copy of that paper to LibGen, to help share the love.

It's an ingenious system, as Simon Oxenham explains for Big Think:

"In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a world of knowledge."

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

For those of you who aren't already using it, the site in question is Sci-Hub, and it's sort of like a Pirate Bay of the science world. It was established in 2011 by neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan, who was frustrated that she couldn't afford to access the articles needed for her research, and it's since gone viral, with hundreds of thousands of papers being downloaded daily. But at the end of last year, the site was ordered to be taken down by a New York district court - a ruling that Elbakyan has decided to fight, triggering a debate over who really owns science.


"Payment of $32 is just insane when you need to skim or read tens or hundreds of these papers to do research. I obtained these papers by pirating them," Elbakyan told Torrent Freak last year. "Everyone should have access to knowledge regardless of their income or affiliation. And that’s absolutely legal."

If it sounds like a modern day Robin Hood struggle, that's because it kinda is. But in this story, it's not just the poor who don't have access to scientific papers - journal subscriptions have become so expensive that leading universities such as Harvard and Cornell have admitted they can no longer afford them. Researchers have also taken a stand - with 15,000 scientists vowing to boycott publisher Elsevier in part for its excessive paywall fees.

Don't get us wrong, journal publishers have also done a whole lot of good - they've encouraged better research thanks to peer review, and before the Internet, they were crucial to the dissemination of knowledge.

But in recent years, more and more people are beginning to question whether they're still helping the progress of science. In fact, in some cases, the 'publish or perish' mentality is creating more problems than solutions, with a growing number of predatory publishers now charging researchers to have their work published - often without any proper peer review process or even editing.

"They feel pressured to do this," Elbakyan wrote in an open letter to the New York judge last year. "If a researcher wants to be recognised, make a career - he or she needs to have publications in such journals."

That's where Sci-Hub comes into the picture. The site works in two stages. First of all when you search for a paper, Sci-Hub tries to immediately download it from fellow pirate database LibGen. If that doesn't work, Sci-Hub is able to bypass journal paywalls thanks to a range of access keys that have been donated by anonymous academics (thank you, science spies).

This means that Sci-Hub can instantly access any paper published by the big guys, including JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, and deliver it to you for free within seconds. The site then automatically sends a copy of that paper to LibGen, to help share the love.

It's an ingenious system, as Simon Oxenham explains for Big Think:

"In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a world of knowledge."

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

"Payment of $32 is just insane when you need to skim or read tens or hundreds of these papers to do research. I obtained these papers by pirating them," Elbakyan told Torrent Freak last year. "Everyone should have access to knowledge regardless of their income or affiliation. And that’s absolutely legal."

If it sounds like a modern day Robin Hood struggle, that's because it kinda is. But in this story, it's not just the poor who don't have access to scientific papers - journal subscriptions have become so expensive that leading universities such as Harvard and Cornell have admitted they can no longer afford them. Researchers have also taken a stand - with 15,000 scientists vowing to boycott publisher Elsevier in part for its excessive paywall fees.

Don't get us wrong, journal publishers have also done a whole lot of good - they've encouraged better research thanks to peer review, and before the Internet, they were crucial to the dissemination of knowledge.

But in recent years, more and more people are beginning to question whether they're still helping the progress of science. In fact, in some cases, the 'publish or perish' mentality is creating more problems than solutions, with a growing number of predatory publishers now charging researchers to have their work published - often without any proper peer review process or even editing.

"They feel pressured to do this," Elbakyan wrote in an open letter to the New York judge last year. "If a researcher wants to be recognised, make a career - he or she needs to have publications in such journals."

That's where Sci-Hub comes into the picture. The site works in two stages. First of all when you search for a paper, Sci-Hub tries to immediately download it from fellow pirate database LibGen. If that doesn't work, Sci-Hub is able to bypass journal paywalls thanks to a range of access keys that have been donated by anonymous academics (thank you, science spies).

This means that Sci-Hub can instantly access any paper published by the big guys, including JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, and deliver it to you for free within seconds. The site then automatically sends a copy of that paper to LibGen, to help share the love.

It's an ingenious system, as Simon Oxenham explains for Big Think:

"In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a world of knowledge."

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

If it sounds like a modern day Robin Hood struggle, that's because it kinda is. But in this story, it's not just the poor who don't have access to scientific papers - journal subscriptions have become so expensive that leading universities such as Harvard and Cornell have admitted they can no longer afford them. Researchers have also taken a stand - with 15,000 scientists vowing to boycott publisher Elsevier in part for its excessive paywall fees.

Don't get us wrong, journal publishers have also done a whole lot of good - they've encouraged better research thanks to peer review, and before the Internet, they were crucial to the dissemination of knowledge.

But in recent years, more and more people are beginning to question whether they're still helping the progress of science. In fact, in some cases, the 'publish or perish' mentality is creating more problems than solutions, with a growing number of predatory publishers now charging researchers to have their work published - often without any proper peer review process or even editing.

"They feel pressured to do this," Elbakyan wrote in an open letter to the New York judge last year. "If a researcher wants to be recognised, make a career - he or she needs to have publications in such journals."

That's where Sci-Hub comes into the picture. The site works in two stages. First of all when you search for a paper, Sci-Hub tries to immediately download it from fellow pirate database LibGen. If that doesn't work, Sci-Hub is able to bypass journal paywalls thanks to a range of access keys that have been donated by anonymous academics (thank you, science spies).

This means that Sci-Hub can instantly access any paper published by the big guys, including JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, and deliver it to you for free within seconds. The site then automatically sends a copy of that paper to LibGen, to help share the love.

It's an ingenious system, as Simon Oxenham explains for Big Think:

"In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a world of knowledge."

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

Don't get us wrong, journal publishers have also done a whole lot of good - they've encouraged better research thanks to peer review, and before the Internet, they were crucial to the dissemination of knowledge.

But in recent years, more and more people are beginning to question whether they're still helping the progress of science. In fact, in some cases, the 'publish or perish' mentality is creating more problems than solutions, with a growing number of predatory publishers now charging researchers to have their work published - often without any proper peer review process or even editing.

"They feel pressured to do this," Elbakyan wrote in an open letter to the New York judge last year. "If a researcher wants to be recognised, make a career - he or she needs to have publications in such journals."

That's where Sci-Hub comes into the picture. The site works in two stages. First of all when you search for a paper, Sci-Hub tries to immediately download it from fellow pirate database LibGen. If that doesn't work, Sci-Hub is able to bypass journal paywalls thanks to a range of access keys that have been donated by anonymous academics (thank you, science spies).

This means that Sci-Hub can instantly access any paper published by the big guys, including JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, and deliver it to you for free within seconds. The site then automatically sends a copy of that paper to LibGen, to help share the love.

It's an ingenious system, as Simon Oxenham explains for Big Think:

"In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a world of knowledge."

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

But in recent years, more and more people are beginning to question whether they're still helping the progress of science. In fact, in some cases, the 'publish or perish' mentality is creating more problems than solutions, with a growing number of predatory publishers now charging researchers to have their work published - often without any proper peer review process or even editing.

"They feel pressured to do this," Elbakyan wrote in an open letter to the New York judge last year. "If a researcher wants to be recognised, make a career - he or she needs to have publications in such journals."

That's where Sci-Hub comes into the picture. The site works in two stages. First of all when you search for a paper, Sci-Hub tries to immediately download it from fellow pirate database LibGen. If that doesn't work, Sci-Hub is able to bypass journal paywalls thanks to a range of access keys that have been donated by anonymous academics (thank you, science spies).

This means that Sci-Hub can instantly access any paper published by the big guys, including JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, and deliver it to you for free within seconds. The site then automatically sends a copy of that paper to LibGen, to help share the love.

It's an ingenious system, as Simon Oxenham explains for Big Think:

"In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a world of knowledge."

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

"They feel pressured to do this," Elbakyan wrote in an open letter to the New York judge last year. "If a researcher wants to be recognised, make a career - he or she needs to have publications in such journals."

That's where Sci-Hub comes into the picture. The site works in two stages. First of all when you search for a paper, Sci-Hub tries to immediately download it from fellow pirate database LibGen. If that doesn't work, Sci-Hub is able to bypass journal paywalls thanks to a range of access keys that have been donated by anonymous academics (thank you, science spies).

This means that Sci-Hub can instantly access any paper published by the big guys, including JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, and deliver it to you for free within seconds. The site then automatically sends a copy of that paper to LibGen, to help share the love.

It's an ingenious system, as Simon Oxenham explains for Big Think:

"In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a world of knowledge."

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

That's where Sci-Hub comes into the picture. The site works in two stages. First of all when you search for a paper, Sci-Hub tries to immediately download it from fellow pirate database LibGen. If that doesn't work, Sci-Hub is able to bypass journal paywalls thanks to a range of access keys that have been donated by anonymous academics (thank you, science spies).

This means that Sci-Hub can instantly access any paper published by the big guys, including JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, and deliver it to you for free within seconds. The site then automatically sends a copy of that paper to LibGen, to help share the love.

It's an ingenious system, as Simon Oxenham explains for Big Think:

"In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a world of knowledge."

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

This means that Sci-Hub can instantly access any paper published by the big guys, including JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, and deliver it to you for free within seconds. The site then automatically sends a copy of that paper to LibGen, to help share the love.

It's an ingenious system, as Simon Oxenham explains for Big Think:

"In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a world of knowledge."

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

It's an ingenious system, as Simon Oxenham explains for Big Think:

"In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a world of knowledge."

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

"In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater level of access to science than any individual university, or even government for that matter, anywhere in the world. Sci-Hub represents the sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a world of knowledge."

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for "irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business model.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

"I think Elsevier’s business model is itself illegal," she told Torrent Freak, referring to article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

She also explains that the academic publishing situation is different to the music or film industry, where pirating is ripping off creators. "All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

Elbakyan hopes that the lawsuit will set a precedent, and make it very clear to the scientific world either way who owns their ideas.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

"If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge," she said. "We have to win over Elsevier and other publishers and show that what these commercial companies are doing is fundamentally wrong."

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

To be fair, Elbakyan is somewhat protected by the fact that she's in Russia and doesn't have any US assets, so even if Elsevier wins their lawsuit, it's going to be pretty hard for them to get the money.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

Still, it's a bold move, and we're pretty interested to see how this fight turns out - because if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's scientific knowledge. In the meantime, Sci-Hub is still up and accessible for anyone who wants to use it, and Elbakyan has no plans to change that anytime soon.

Bron: www.sciencealert.com

quote:

Anonymous: Hackers reveal how to start a cyber activist operation in step-by-step guide

Hacking collective Anonymous is one of the most recognised names in the world of cyber activism and anyone who wants to follow in its footsteps can do so after hackers released a step-by-step guide on how to do things the Anonymous way.

Responsible for starting campaigns and operations to protest against everything from political issues to injustice, the secret group has been behind government and organisation websites being taken down as well as declaring war on Isis and the Ku Klux Klan.

Now, Anonymous has posted online a document that provides a checklist on how hacktivists can carry out and expose their own operations with the same style as the famous group. It covers everything from where to submit hacked data, how to start a protest, and what to do to begin your own Anonymous operation.

Hackers are advised to safely submit their information to sites such as WikiLeaks, while activists are instructed to start an organised protest and tweet the event.

It details that operations should be planned carefully and charges individuals to question its purpose, message and end goal. "Why should people care about the op? The op is nothing if no one cares about it. You had better be able to tell the rest of us why we should care. It should also be said that not every grievance and/or government wrongdoing is a reason to rally an op."

Pointers on how the campaign is promoted are also given. Anonymous affiliates are prolific users of social media and aren't shy to tell the world the details of their latest act as the more exposure the better to highlight the message. The document tells people to "spread the word" and "create Anonymous social media accounts and propaganda, spread flyers during protests and use street art to express your support, ask for permission of creators of Anonymous videos to reupload the video on your channel."

The one caveat it states is: "Please do not make a press release for an operation if you haven't done anything to backup your words."

For those who are wanting to be involved in starting your own Anonymous-style movement, here's the release in whole:

Hackers:

Submit your information safely to WikiLeaks https://wikileaks.org/#submit or to other websites like BalkanLeaks http://www.balkanleaks.eu/

Activists:

Start protests and make clear where and when the protest is happening, contact local, national or global activist organisations for support and tweet the information to @YourAnonNews

Academics:

Research our leaks and those of our allies like @WikiLeaks, @CthulhuSec etc.
Upload the research in PDF format to https://www.docdroid.net/ or https://pdf.yt/ and tweet to @YourAnonNews

An Anonymous operation should be planned carefully, this checklist should get you along the way
*What is the purpose of the op?
*What are you trying to accomplish?
*What kind of message are you trying to spread?
*Make sure that the operation has a foundation that has been thoroughly thought out so that the op doesn't have to suffer later because of poor planning.
*Why should people care about the op? The op is nothing if no one cares about it. Clearly, you care about it so you had better be able to tell the rest of us why we should also care. While we encourage ops, it should also be said that not every grievance and/or government wrongdoing is a reason to rally an op.
*What are the relevant/vital pieces of information relating to the op? Assume nobody else but you know anything about the topic of the op. Gather the more important information that will get people up to speed quickly.
*How will you communicate the op to the public? Whether you are going to use Facebook, Twitter, videos, press releases, etc. have a solid plan on how to execute and spread the op.

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE A PRESS RELEASE FOR AN OPERATION IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO BACK UP YOUR WORDS

There are a million things that can go wrong in the planning of an op and when you don't deliver while getting the public excited with a press release it causes a MAJOR discredit for the movement as a whole.

Spread the word:

Create Anonymous social media accounts and propaganda, spread flyers during protests and use street art to express your support, ask for permission of creators of Anonymous videos to reupload the video on your channel.

Please note Anonymous is a decentralized movement, no one can speak for Anonymous as a whole, nor is there any official Anonymous account. Where Anonymous does not have a power structure, the most effective Anonymous operations had a temporary structure for an effective and efficient way of communication amongst operatives.

Bron: www.ibtimes.co.uk

quote:

Anonymous hacktivists share personal info of Cincinnati cops as revenge for deadly shooting

quote:

After releasing a threatening video, the notorious hacking group Anonymous exposed personal information of 52 Cincinnati Police Department officers in retaliation for the death of an Ohio man at the hands of law enforcement.

In the video posted on Sunday, someone wearing a mask and hood discussed the group’s anger over the Cincinnati PD’s handling of an officer-involved shooting last Wednesday that resulted in the death of Paul Gaston, a black man.

“Greetings world, we are Anonymous Anon Verdict. The following clip you are about to see are three separate cell phone clips of Cincinnati Police Department murdering a black man named Paul Gaston while he held his hands up on February 17th. With the evidence provided it is quite obvious that he was complying and had his hands in the air,” the figure said with a synthesized voice in the three-minute YouTube video.

quote:

France - French Anonymous hackers go on trial for targeting police officers - France 24

International News 24/7

A prosecutor asked a Paris court to hand the three men, aged 22 to 27, a one-year suspended sentence and a 5,000 euro (5,500 dollar) fine each, a lawyer for the police officers, Daniel Merchat, told The Associated Press.

The three are also accused of breaking into two government sites and blocking public access for days.

The names, phone numbers, and personal and professional email addresses of 541 police officers who were members of the SGP-FO police union were posted online in January 2012 after a hacking attack claimed by the Anonymous organization, a loosely-associated international network of hackers.

The police officers are asking for 73,000 euros (80,400 dollars) in damages overall, another lawyer for one of the defendants, Matthieu Hy, told the AP.

The criminal court will deliver its ruling March 22.

Merchat told France Info radio "the contact information for these police officers is accessible to all people planning to target France".

After his arrest, one of the defendants told the police the hacking attack was carried out in retaliation to the arrests of several Anonymous activists by French police and the closure of the popular website Megaupload by the US department of justice days earlier.

The shutdown of Megaupload, a platform that ran online storage and viewing services, led to so-called denial-of-service (DoS) attacks on a range of government, police and copyright organization websites by the Anonymous group, including the French attacks, according to court documents.

Bron: www.france24.com

quote:

Judge confirms what many suspected: Feds hired CMU to break Tor | Ars Technica

A federal judge in Washington has now confirmed what has been strongly suspected: that Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) researchers at its Software Engineering Institute were hired by the federal government to do research into breaking Tor in 2014. The judge also made a notable statement in his court order that "Tor users clearly lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their IP addresses while using the Tor network."

However, some of the details that Tor alleged previously seem to be wrong: the research was funded by the Department of Defense, not the FBI. Tor Project Director Shari Steele told Ars earlier this year that the organization still couldn't get straight answers from CMU. According to the judge, that research was then subpoenaed by federal investigators.

The Tor Project did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment. Meanwhile, Kenneth Walters, a CMU spokesman, refused to answer Ars' questions, referring us only to the university's last statement, from November 2015, which hinted that the university was served with a subpoena.

The revelation, which was first reported by Vice Motherboard, came out as part of the ongoing criminal case against Brian Farrell, allegedly one of Silk Road 2.0’s top administrators. CMU's research enabled investigators to find him. Farrell was arrested over a year ago in Washington state—his trial is scheduled for April 25, 2016, to be held in federal court in Seattle.

The Tuesday court order by US District Judge Richard Jones was in response to a still-sealed motion to compel discovery filed by Farrell. According to Judge Jones, "the defendant seeks to compel disclosure of additional material pertaining to the relationship between SEI and federal law enforcement and the methods used by SEI to identify the defendant’s IP address."

In the order, the judge seems to suggest that even though Farrell took measures to protect his privacy, his actual IP address—which was what betrayed him and made it trivial for law enforcement to find him—was not in and of itself private.

Judge Jones wrote:

In the instant case, it is the Court’s understanding that in order for a prospective user to use the Tor network they must disclose information, including their IP addresses, to unknown individuals running Tor nodes, so that their communications can be directed toward their destinations. Under such a system, an individual would necessarily be disclosing his identifying information to complete strangers. Again, according to the parties’ submissions, such a submission is made despite the understanding communicated by the Tor Project that the Tor network has vulnerabilities and that users might not remain anonymous. Under these circumstances Tor users clearly lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their IP addresses while using the Tor network. In other words, they are taking a significant gamble on any real expectation of privacy under these circumstances.

Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, told Ars that the court’s analysis here is "right, although the application of that idea depends on how the surveillance occurred."

He suggested that Ars examine a 1992 case decided in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that just because someone takes steps to protect privacy, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they continue to have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

That case, US v. Scott, involved a man suspected of tax fraud by the Internal Revenue Service. The man used a paper shredder to destroy some documents, which were then picked up as garbage by investigators, "which when painstakingly pieced together produced incriminating evidence."

Scott challenged the collection of his trash, arguing that because he had "manifested an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the shredded remnants" that the evidence should be suppressed. He won on this argument at the district court level but then lost on appeal.

The 1st Circuit found in that case:

What we have here is a failed attempt at secrecy by reason of underestimation of police resourcefulness, not invasion of constitutionally protected privacy. There is no constitutional protection from police scrutiny as to information received from a failed attempt at secrecy.

…

Appellee here thought that reducing the documents to 5/32 inch pieces made them undecipherable. It turned out he was wrong. He is in no better position than the citizen who merely tears up a document by hand and discards the pieces into the sidewalk. Can there be any doubt that the police are allowed to pick up the pieces from the sidewalk for use of the contents against that person? Should the mere use of more sophisticated "higher" technology in attempting destruction of the pieces of paper grant higher constitutional protection to this failed attempt at secrecy? We think not. There is no constitutional requirement that police techniques in the detection of crime must remain stagnant while those intent on keeping their nefarious activities secret have the benefit of new knowledge.

However, not all legal scholars agree on this point.

Neil Richards, a law professor at Washington University in St Louis, said that this "reasonable expectation of privacy" for Internet users is "an open one." The so-called third-party doctrine, which stemmed from the 1979 Supreme Court decision Smith v. Maryland, found that telephone users do not have a privacy interest in the phone numbers that they dial, as the phone company has access to them.

"Law enforcement have argued that this sharing rationale applies to all Internet and digital data held by third parties—ISPs, e-mail providers, fitness trackers, cloud storage providers, etc," Richards told Ars. "The strong form of this argument is nonsense. Law enforcement in the past also argued that they didn’t need warrants to open mail or tap telephones, and ultimately lost on both counts. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on e-mail yet, but lower courts require a warrant for e-mail, and the Supreme Court has made clear in recent cases that a majority of Justices are very concerned about digital privacy and are eager to extend the Fourth Amendment to that, just like they did for telephone calls in the 1960s."

Mark Rumold, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, concurred.

"The expectation of privacy analysis has to change when someone is using Tor," he said. "Rotely applying precedent leads to bad results, like courts finding that someone 'clearly' lacks a privacy interest in their IP address, even though they're using technology specifically designed to protect that privacy interest."

Expand full story

Cyrus Farivar / Cyrus is the Senior Business Editor at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His first book, The Internet of Elsewhere, was published in April 2011.

Bron: arstechnica.com

quote:

Twitter shuts down Anonymous accounts “for harassing” ISIS jihadis | Breaking UK news

The social media site has come under fire from the hacktivists who recently told Express Online they are shutting down thousands of ISIS accounts every month.

While Twitter says it is making strong efforts to shut down terrorist accounts, said they do not see this happening, but they have been targeted themselves.

As quickly as ISIS sets up accounts and spreads propaganda, hackers from groups like Anonymous and Ctrl Sec are taking them down in their own online campaign #OpISIS.

The group updates followers, linking to the accounts they have spotted, while calling on other to join them and report Jihadi profiles.

But they have said the social media site is shutting them down.

Twitter has received severe criticism over its handling of the ISIS crisis in recent months.

In January, a Florida woman, Tamara Fields, filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that it breached the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act by “spreading extremist propaganda,” which caused an attack in Jordan that killed her husband, a private contractor, Lloyd “Carl” Fields Jr.

Twitter later published a blog post saying that since mid-2015 it suspended 125,000 accounts for “threatening or promoting terrorist acts, primarily related to ISIS.”

But this has been hotly disputed.

A statement from WauchulaGhost, an anti-terrorist hacker with the hacker collective Anonymous, said: “Who suspended 125,000 accounts? Anonymous, Anonymous affiliated groups, and everyday citizens.

“You do realise if we all stopped reporting terrorist accounts and graphic images, Twitter would be flooded with terrorists.”

After the announcement by Twitter angered Anonymous members revealed they have had their accounts banned – not ISIS.

In one day in February 15 hackers had their accounts shut down on Tiwtter, despite months of finding and reporting jihadis.

Their supporters complained to Twitter in their droves and their accounts were reactivated within two hours.

WauchulaGhost said in an interview with Epoch Times it is widely believed Twitter is shutting down the accounts because of “anti-bullying” pledge

He said: “I can say they are suspending a lot of accounts for harassment. Good accounts not Daesh accounts.

“Even a lot of our (Anonymous) accounts are being suspended for harassment.”

The hacker also said that if Twitter is committed to stopping terrorism they should add a “terrorism” button to the reporting options.

There are about 2,000 ISIS-supporting Twitter accounts active each day, and Twitter and Facebook are the two main platforms used by ISIS supporters to spread their propaganda, according to a February report from George Washington University.

Of those 2,000 accounts, there are around 350 Twitter accounts that act as the main core for ISIS propaganda on Twitter—and these accounts are used to re-establish the followings of accounts each time one is banned.

According to the George Washington University report, each time an ISIS account gets suspended, the user needs to create a new account, and over time these accounts have “suffered devastating reductions in their follower counts.”

A Twitter spokesman told the Epoch Times: “We have teams around the world actively investigating reports of rule violations, and they work with law enforcement entities when appropriate.”

Bron: news24uk.info

February 15, 2016 RIP D.T

quote:

Anonymous hacked the Donald Trump 's voicemailsSecurity Affairs

The Anonymous hacking collective continues its personal battle against Donald Trump, this time hacking the voicemail of the presidential candidate.

On Thursday, Gawker received an anonymous email containing recordings from Donald Trump’s voicemail inbox. The recordings include messages left for Trump by various celebrities, Joe Scarborough from MSNBC, Mika Brzezinski, and Tamron Hall.

The journalists from MSNBC television can be heard thanking Mr Trump for donations.

The Gawker journalists could not determine the exact dates of the messages neither ensure their authenticity. A number of messages make references to the events of the 2012 presidential campaign season.

Anonymous “declared war” on Mr Trump in December, when he called for a sweeping ban on Muslims entering the United States soil.

anonymous Donald Trump 2

Other messages were sent by popular journalists and anchors, MSNBC news anchors Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and Tamron Hall have been tasked with analyzing the evolution of the Mr Trump’s Republican primary campaign.

Mr Scarborough and Ms Brzezinski, the co-hosts of a morning show on MSNBC, can be heard thanking Trump for his donation to a charity event.

The recording includes also the Mr Trump’s recommendations for an MSNBC interview, it is possible to hear Mr Trump instructing both Mr Scarborough and Ms Brezinski to “make us all look good”, and asks for “nothing too hard” when Ms Brezinski asked if she should question him about his immigration issues.

The Tweets by the anchors after the disclosure of the recording seems to confirm their authenticity

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) 4 marzo 2016

In another recording a woman identifying herself as “T Hall”, likely MSNBC’s Tamron Hall, can be heard saying she was going to use Mr Trump’s discount in a luxury clothing store.

Anonymous also released a video that shows hackers gaining access to the administration console of Donald Trump’s answerphone and change settings.

One of the messages was left by Barack Obama’s advisor David Axelrod can also be heard thanking Mr Trump for donating to his epilepsy charity.

It is curious that Trump has criticized Hillary Clinton for her use of an insecure private email server during her time as Secretary of State, but as highlighted by Gawker, “Unfortunately for Trump, it would seem that his voicemail isn’t much safer.”

Stay Tuned …

Bron: securityaffairs.co

quote:

How Anonymous Fooled Donald Trump, the Secret Service, and the FBI

Claire Bernish
March 19, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United States — Anonymous just pulled a fast one on Donald Trump, his campaign staff, the Secret Service, and the FBI — in one brilliant and telling fell swoop.

To support the White Rose Society and the White Rose Revolt, which began as a response to fascist leanings by Trump and his supporters, Anonymous launched #OpWhiteRose — and the billionaire presidential hopeful fell right into the ‘trap.’

On Friday, Anonymous announced it had released Trump’s personal information online — including such details as his cell phone number and Social Security number. Backlash from the Trump front promptly followed, as well as an announcement from the Secret Service and FBI that an investigation had begun.

However, the information had not been hacked or leaked. In fact, everything Anonymous posted had been online — and available for anyone to see — for years.

Anonymous RedCult released a second video to explain the ruse, in which the narrator explains the information “was online since 2013.” Indeed, as the video states, “The government and law enforcement authorities are seeking the arrest of the people responsible for attempting to illegally hack Mr. Trump’s accounts and telephone information.”

Why law enforcement at every level was so quick to pounce on a non-crime and effect arrest of those behind it — without investigating whether a crime had even been committed — paints a telling portrait of exactly the fascist tendencies Anonymous wished to prove.

RedCult included a snippet of ABC News coverage of the non-hack, which reports it as if it were a serious crime. Again, this information has ostensibly been available on the internet for years — so, as the narrator points out, “Trump want[s] to turn America into a fascist dictatorship where anyone can be arrested for just posting old information online.”

It’s arguably not far from the truth.

Indeed, as Trump indiscriminately aims his hatred of the press, protesters, activists, and anyone who disagrees with his twisted vision for the future, Anonymous might have proven a crucial point.

“Thank you Trump and Trump campaign. Thank you police, FBI, and the Secret Service for being a part of our little experiment on how we should expect the so-called New America will be,” the narrator stated.

Whatever your feelings about the collective known as Anonymous, the experiment was a frightening, facile ‘success’ — of sorts.

Though the joke was on Trump this time, it proves his fascist tendencies are nothing to joke about.

Bron: theantimedia.org

quote:

Anonymous Speaks: “Thank You Very Much, Mr. Loftsson”

quote:

One of the most controversial practices Iceland engages in on the international stage is in whale hunting. The industry has seemed virtually unstoppable, even in the face of international petitions and condemnation from the White House itself. However, hacktivist group Anonymous have gotten involved in fighting whaling, as a part of a campaign called #OpWhales.

By Anonymous’ nature, there is no central committee who decides where everyone is to focus their energy. Rather, #OpWhales is the brainchild of Amber Stone. Amber reluctantly agreed to speak with Grapevine about the campaign, why it matters, and where #OpWhales is headed.

quote:

Anonymous's 'total war' on Trump raises questions of jurisdiction

On March 15, the group known as Anonymous declared cyber war on the Donald Trump campaign.

Anonymous has been labeled by some as a virtual state, while others place the group under the hacktivists label. Either way in keeping with their normal process, the group posted a video on YouTube.

In it, the group called for their followers and loyalists to “Shut down [Trump’s] websites” and to “research and expose what he doesn’t want the public to know.”

The Anonymous leader called on his loyalists to “dismantle his campaign” and “sabotage his brand.” Finally, he declared “This is a total war!”

Those are strong words to be sure, and words that Anonymous intends to make sure become a reality. Some have estimated that the cyber technical capabilities of Anonymous rank up there with the top 10 countries around the world.

It appears Anonymous has called for the attacks, referred to as #OpTrump, to begin on April 1. Within hours the video was viewed nearly 900,000 times, with thumbs-up ratings beating thumbs-down by more than three to one.

Just how many people are part of Anonymous is unknown. Some researchers have stated that the hacktivist group is large and dispersed internationally to a great degree. As evidence, the researchers point to the over 22 million likes on just one of the many social media pages for the group. Clearly a formidable adversary.

Who’s in charge?

Anonymous has launched dozens of cyberattack campaigns over the years. They have clearly demonstrated their ability to carry-out successful cyberattacks; and therefore the threat should be taken seriously. This is an attack against Donald Trump and his candidacy. Does that place this in the hands of the Secret Service? If the attacks target his online brand or the numerous systems in his hotels, does that put this in the hands of the FBI?

Another possibility is that the Trump organizations follow a path that a few firms have taken and defend themselves by launching counter-offensives.

What if Trump becomes the Republican nominee? Will Anonymous continue the cyber war? It is not just about Donald Trump. If they carry out their threat, this is an attack on the process the United States uses to elect those who govern the country. Does that move this to the hands of the Homeland Security Department?

Given the international nature of Anonymous and their attacks, as well as any counter-attack that might be launched, the U.S. State Department will have to be involved. What happens if Trump is elected president and Anonymous continues the cyberattacks? If so, that is an attack on the highest office in the land. Does that constitute an act of cyber war? After all, those are the words Anonymous used. That would surely place it in the hands of U.S. Cyber Command and the military.

We have entered new territory and there are so many questions that need answers fast. The executive branch, Strategic Command, Cyber Command, the Intelligence Community, FBI, Secret Service and others better be meeting right now to get ahead of this issue.
Bron: www.federaltimes.com

quote:

Anonymous hacks Angolan government after activists jailed | World news | The Guardian

Collective says it attacked official websites in retaliation to sentences given to 17 members of a book club in Luanda


A Portuguese branch of the Anonymous hacking collective says it has shut down around 20 Angolan government websites in retaliation to the jailing of 17 youth activists for plotting a “rebellion”.

The youths, including well-known rapper Luaty Beirão, were sentenced on Monday to between two and eight-and-a-half years, in a ruling that Amnesty International said was “an affront to justice”.

Related: Angola jails 17 activists for rebellion after public reading of political book

In a statement on its Facebook page the Anonymous Portugal group listed the government websites it said it had attacked. None of the websites were accessible on Wednesday.

“The real criminals are outside, defended by the capitalist system that increasingly spreads in the minds of the weak,” Anonymous said.

There was no immediate comment from the Angolan government on the alleged cyber attack.

Beirão, who holds dual Portuguese and Angolan nationality, has a loyal fan base in Portugal, the colonial ruler of Angola until the country won its independence after a protracted war in 1974.

Amnesty called for the immediate release of the activists, 15 of whom were detained during a weekly book group meeting in the capital Luanda last June.

“Angolan authorities use the criminal justice system to silence dissenting views,” said Amnesty director Deprose Muchena.

“The activists have been wrongly convicted in a deeply-politicised trial. They are the victims of a government determined to intimidate anyone who dares to question its repressive policies.”

At the sentencing, about 30 protesters outside the court yelled “free the youths, arrest dictator Jose Eduardo dos Santos”, the president of Angola since 1979.

A man who shouted inside the court that the sentences were a “travesty of justice” was himself sentenced on Tuesday to eight months in jail.

The jailed activists insist they are peaceful campaigners lobbying for Dos Santos, 73, to step down.

This month, he said he would retire in 2018 but the announcement was received with scepticism following two similar pledges in the past. His current mandate ends at the end of next year.

Bron: www.theguardian.com

quote:

Anonymous linked hacker asked to hand over crypto keys to United States » TechWorm

The National Crime Agency (NCA) has demanded that a British computer scientist suspected of hacking into US federal computer networks and causing “millions of dollars in damage,” decrypts a number of devices seized by the agency back in 2013.

Lauri Love, the Anonymous linked hacker in question, was arrested in 2013 for the alleged intrusions but released afterwards; however, he was rearrested in 2015. He is currently fighting extradition to the US for hacking charges after charges revealed last year accused him of breaching the networks of the US Army, the Federal Reserve, NASA and other high-profile targets.

Love has until now refused to comply with a Section 49 RIPA notice to decrypt the devices, a refusal that carries potential jail time. However, British authorities in the on-going court proceedings have not charged Love with any crime, leading him to counter-sue in civil court for the return of his devices. The devices in question include a Samsung laptop, a Fujitsu Siemens laptop, a Compaq computer tower, an SD card, and a Western Digital hard drive. The NCA in particular wants Love to decrypt TrueCrypt files on the SD card and external drive.

The government’s demands threaten to erode the right against self-incrimination, Dr. Richard Tynan of Privacy International told Ars. “This is the first time we have heard of a UK agency using two different legal mechanisms to compel the decryption of data,” he said. “It is particularly worrisome given that no prosecution is underway against the individual [Love] and is in the context of a serious extradition case to the US. The right not to provide evidence against oneself is cherished in the US and around the world but apparently not so in the UK.”

In Love’s civil case, his argument is that if the police are not going to charge him with a crime, they should return his property. “The problem is that the NCA are effectively arguing that any information that cannot be read and comprehended by the police has a presumption of guilt,” Love told Ars in an e-mailed statement. “This has clear and troubling implications for groups that handle sensitive communications or other data—journalists, advocates, activists and whistleblowers, and members of the legal profession.

“An executive body of the state is saying that any information to which they are not privy… cannot be owned and kept securely but instead confiscated and access denied,” Love added. “This is a fundamental reversal of rights and the potential for abuse is alarming.

However, the NCA said that it would not return the devices as it was unable to decrypt their contents and argues that Love should decrypt his devices in order to demonstrate that the data they contain belongs to him.

Now, court proceedings show that the agency has demanded Love hand over the passwords and encryption keys to the seized goods, according to Ars. The NCA also wants Love to provide a witness statement indicating why he is entitled to the data held on the devices – which investigators believe contains “pirated versions of copyrighted films,” “data from the ‘Police Oracle‘ website,” and “data obtained from the United States Department of Energy and the United States Senate.”

Nevertheless, Tor Ekeland, Love’s attorney in the US, believes that the NCA’s demands have nothing to do with the ongoing civil law suit. “I think they want to gain access to the information on Lauri’s computers in order to turn it over to the US authorities, with whom it seems to me they are plainly cooperating,” he told Ars. “Lauri is currently under indictment in the US, and it appears the UK government is sharing information with the US, so the question on our end is whether the UK government is violating Lauri’s US constitutional rights as a criminal defendant by engaging in activity that US prosecutors may not be able to do in the US.

“Are the UK prosecutors acting as agents for the US in this instance?” Ekeland asked. “The possibility that the US government may use foreign sovereigns to do an end run around US constitutional criminal defendant protections is disturbing to me.”

The FBI and Department of Justice (DoJ) claim that as part of the hacking collective Anonymous, Love has been involved in hacking into various governmental agencies, resulting in millions of dollars’ worth of damage. The court is set to hear arguments on the decryption demand on April 12 at Westminster Magistrate’s Court while the next extradition hearing set for June 28 and 29. The FBI has stated that if convicted by a US court, he could face up to 12 years in prison.

Source: Ars

Bron: www.techworm.net