Print 72 comment(s) - last by vol7ron.. on Feb 5 at 8:46 PM

Anonymous takes the fight to the U.S. Government

Anonymous is steaming mad, and the U.S. government is directly in its crosshairs. The suicide of Aaron Swartz, an internet activist and co-creator of Reddit and the RSS standard, was the final straw which caused Anonymous to come out of hiding and attack the U.S. Department of Justice with all its might.
I. Aaron Swartz Find Himself in Legal Trouble, Eventually Commits Suicide

Swartz came under fire after he accessed JSTOR database with a personal laptop in 2011. Using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT's) data network, Swartz downloaded over 4 million academic journals in an effort to make them freely available to the public.
While Swartz had indeed compromised MIT's network and the JSTOR database, the Middlesex County district court decided that he wouldn't face jail time for his actions. The matter would have been closed and Swartz would have been "off the hook" so to speak, but United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz took up the case and things decidedly took a turn for the worse.

Aaron Swartz
Ortiz decided to hit Swartz with 13 felony charges that could have sent him to jail for up to 35 years. Swartz would also be on the hook for a $1 million fine for his actions. In a 2011 press release, Ortiz declared that, "Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.”
With the U.S. Government breathing down his neck and with no outlet and no amicable resolution in sight to "humanely" resolve his legal woes, Swartz took his own life on January 11, 2013.
After Swartz committed suicide, Ortiz acknowledged that, “There was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal gain” and that his conduct “did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress.”
Aaron Swartz's family released a statement shortly after his death that placed the blame for his suicide on MIT and the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney's office:
Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy. It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s office and at MIT contributed to his death. The US Attorney’s office pursued an exceptionally harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30 years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had no victims. Meanwhile, unlike JSTOR, MIT refused to stand up for Aaron and its own community’s most cherished principles.
II. Anonymous Breaks Its Silence, Fights for Justice by Attacking the U.S. Department of Justice

This morning, Anonymous revealed its massive attack on the U.S. Government, culminating with the hacking and defacement of the website for the United States Sentencing Commission (for obvious reasons). Anonymous made it clear that Swartz's death was the reason for its latest actions:
Two weeks ago today, a line was crossed. Two weeks ago today, Aaron Swartz was killed. Killed because he faced an impossible choice. Killed because he was forced into playing a game he could not win -- a twisted and distorted perversion of justice -- a game where the only winning move was not to play.
And with that, Anonymous laid out its plans to turn the tables on the government and in essence, give it a taste of its own medicine. In the letter, Anonymous declared, "The time has come to show the United States Department of Justice and its affiliates the true meaning of infiltration. The time has come for them to feel the helplessness and fear that comes with being forced into a game where the odds are stacked against them."

Anonymous has spent the last few weeks infiltrating government sites using injection code to gather a wealth of information that it intends to leak to news organizations. Although the hacktivists didn't detail what's included with the information they've gleaned so far, they note, "Everyone has secrets, and some things are not meant to be public."
We have enough fissile material for multiple warheads. Today we are launching the first of these. Operation Last Resort has begun...
We have not taken this action lightly, nor without consideration of the possible consequences. Should we be forced to reveal the trigger-key to this warhead, we understand that there will be collateral damage. We appreciate that many who work within the justice system believe in those principles that it has lost, corrupted, or abandoned, that they do not bear the full responsibility for the damages caused by their occupation.
It is our hope that this warhead need never be detonated.
The first weapon is a file called US-DOJ-LEA-2013.aes256, which contains multiple "warheads" named after current U.S. Supreme Court Justices:

Anonymous plans to detonate its warhead if its demands aren't met.

The contents of these files has not yet been decimated, but we're sure that over the course of the next few days that we'll be privy to what Anonymous wants the world to learn about the U.S. Government.
III. What Does Anonymous Hope to Gain from These Actions?

Anonymous knows that its actions will bring forth a hellstorm from the U.S. Government; Richard McFeely, executive assistant director of the FBI's Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch, has already stated today that it is "handling it as a criminal investigation." But Anonymous feels that changes have to be made to the way sentences are handed down for crimes that essentially are a "violation of terms of service". It calls for "reform of mandatory minimum sentencing" and "a return to proportionality of punishment with respect to actual harm caused, and consideration of motive."
The inalienable right to a presumption of innocence and the recourse to trial and possibility of exoneration must be returned to its sacred status, and not gambled away by pre-trial bargaining in the face of overwhelming sentences, unaffordable justice and disfavourable odds. Laws must be upheld unselectively, and not used as a weapon of government to make examples of those it deems threatening to its power.
Anonymous ended its diatribe by simply stating, "This time there will be change, or there will be chaos…"
We doubt that the U.S. Government will simply roll over and bow down to the demands of Anonymous, so it will be interesting to see how many warhead detonations we'll see as we move on to another round of "WarGames".

Sources: Wired, CNET, CNN, Media Nation

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Spuke on 1/26/13, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By geddarkstorm on 1/26/2013 3:01:57 PM , Rating: 5
Anonymous isn't taking down servers, it seems; they are preparing to release sensitive (maybe incriminating) information that the Government doesn't want the public or others to know. It's a very different issue than simple DDOSing or what not.

RE: Really?
By Da W on 1/26/13, Rating: -1
RE: Really?
By Spuke on 1/26/13, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By aurareturn on 1/26/2013 4:15:12 PM , Rating: 4
They don't have to get the government to do what they want. It's all about awareness.

RE: Really?
By Spuke on 1/26/13, Rating: -1
RE: Really?
By guffwd13 on 1/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By Ammohunt on 1/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: Really?
By guffwd13 on 1/28/2013 4:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
You apparently have no idea how ironic your statement is.

RE: Really?
By Ammohunt on 1/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: Really?
By Jeffk464 on 1/26/2013 9:13:25 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, I agree. Smear this DA's name all over the press and get as much negative attention as possible. I'm 100% with anonymous on this one.

RE: Really?
By Phlip77 on 1/29/2013 1:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
Like hell, they found Jimmy Hoffa damnit!

RE: Really?
By inperfectdarkness on 1/28/2013 2:56:36 AM , Rating: 1
Releasing the information?

The contents of these files has not yet been decimated

And here I though they were just going to blow shit up. :)

RE: Really?
By KITH on 1/28/2013 3:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
I assume that should be 'disseminated'

RE: Really?
By guffwd13 on 1/26/2013 4:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the point. Let me preface this by saying I am no conspiracist and, in fact, laugh add the fanaticism that conspiracy hobbyists exhibit.

Anonymous could gather information as sensitive as say, for example (and this is entirely hypothetical as I do not believe the conspiracy to be true), they were to find some evidence to prove the US government manufactured 911 to bring American patriotism back. Or perhaps certain members of the government and how they act completely contrary to legal systems in order to maintain order.

They could, if the information is digitized somewhere, find enough evidence that could create enough civic discord to provide instability to the system of western government as we know it. Because (this is not conspiracist, this is just how things have to operate to maintain systemic order over imperfect variabels - ie people) the average Joe does not understand the principal and complexity of contracting entropy.

Of course some will meet any evidence with disbelief, others will go crazy over the idea, and some will parse the information and learn from it. Either way, information is the single most important weapon anyone could have. And Anonymous has the tools to acquire it should they desire to do so.

RE: Really?
By Spuke on 1/26/13, Rating: -1
RE: Really?
By Lord 666 on 1/26/2013 9:28:24 PM , Rating: 5
Voting?! Its a rigged system. Who did you vote for; the guy who will not share his school records (signing an eo on the first day of office in 2009 research on those records) or the other guy who wouldn't share his tax records?

Politics itself is a distraction, just like that Te'o crap. Red state, blue state... its all bs. The only thing that is real is the power of money. Specifically avoided the word "dollar" because its obvious where that is going.

RE: Really?
By TSS on 1/27/2013 4:06:56 AM , Rating: 4
I hate to point something out, but you just said that if you wanted to get something real done, all you get done is voting in another set of idiots. I mean as i understand it, nothing changed in the election, nothing at all. Obama's still president, democrats still have the senate, republicans still have the house, and there's still no budget. Exactly 0 change from the year before that.

It's true that the vote is your power, and it could indeed be used effectively, but that's only if the people themselves have the intelligence to figure out what's going on, and who to vote for. Or at the very least the intelligence to discern who to listen to from the wealth of people that'll tell you what to do. For example, why did nobody vote for a 3rd party? I looked it up the US has like 8 political parties who participate in the presidential elections each time, of which 6 get next to no votes (the independants get just enough to be a statistic).

So if all you manage to do is vote in another set of idiots, why can't you even get it done to vote in a different set of idiots of a different colour? How could it possibly be worse then the current colours of idiots in charge?

It's in this that anonymous can have power. By disrupting the bubble of propaganda so far built up by decades and decades of electing the same people over and over again, by making it public how bad they really are. I mean we know they're bad, but it's still private information, as in it could still possibly all work out in the end and the leaders are actually competent, if what misguided themselves. Once evidence is made public of their incompetence, that option dissapears completly and people are forced to act.

If they manage to dig up and expose enough dirt on both republicans and democrats, maybe the 2 party system will finally break. That'll be a big step forward in itself. Faith in federal government will evaporate, bringing stuff back down to the local level and the people that actually have to live with the rules, wouldn't call that a bad thing either.

That being said though i'm not sure if anonymous is the right group for this job. Without a clear leader to focus that power it's just going to disperse all over the place without getting anything effective done, while the way it was done will be shut down as soon as it's exposed. Simply put, they're exposing backdoors to the system without really hurting the system.

Now if somebody starts leading them into a direction and starts focussing people's attacks, as well as being able to become a symbol for this revolution, then they can start doing some real damage. But since that goes against the whole idea of anonymous in the first place... eh...

I'll take what i can get i suppose.

RE: Really?
By retrospooty on 1/27/2013 8:06:12 AM , Rating: 3
That is because the US election isn't at all about putting up the rep vs. the dem and having the country vote which way to go. The UD elections are about the powers that be, putting up both candidates to give the facade that we have a choice. They keep the dull masses fighting with each other and ignoring whats really going on.

RE: Really?
By guffwd13 on 1/27/2013 6:11:06 PM , Rating: 1
First of all, I said "if" not "when" the information is digitized. I have no proof and as I said am no conspiracist. To suggest its the fault of the American people to vote those into office with secrets is entirely ridiculous. Why do you think we have the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, Homeland Security, the Secret Service, etc etc etc? SECRETS! Information is absolute power.

This isn't about some trivial socio-political or economic system. We're talking the big idea above that. Many forms of government have, do, and will work in the future. The American system is just one of those systems - no more or less successful than the others (for the record the longest standing western empire on the planet is a dictatorship - ie the Catholic Church). And behind every signal one of those systems are a bunch of lies, deceit, murder, assignations, death, and deals behind closed doors. That is what politicking is. It isn't pitching some lowest common denominator bullshit to the masses while pretending everything is all idealistically perfect and hunky-dory.

The irony behind your comment is that I assume there is stuff I don't know going on all around me. You assume you know exactly whats going on. Who's naive?

RE: Really?
By Jeffk464 on 1/26/2013 9:17:42 PM , Rating: 5
How about finding evidence of bribery on the half of corporate interests to put these oppressive laws in place. We have a right to see what corporation bought which politician to put which law in place. None of this allowing corporations to hide their contribution, its total blatant corruption.

RE: Really?
By HrilL on 1/28/2013 12:46:37 PM , Rating: 3
You can look at the list of registered lobbyist and the amount of wealth it has created around Washington. Most of the long term politicians family members are in fact the same lobbyist who get favors from their corrupt family members. We need term limits and a ban on all federal lobbying if anything is ever going to get solved. The same goes for corporations being able to fund elections. It all has to end for anything to actually change. Both parties are already bought and paid for. The corporations don't care who wins because in the end they're going to get what they want. They call it a bipartisan deal in the mass media but its all a sham.

RE: Really?
By Yojimbo on 1/26/2013 10:37:53 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah. The US government is already worrying about Iran and China on the cyber-front. How much more can Anonymous do than those countries can by themselves?

I heard that...
By geekman1024 on 1/26/2013 7:47:45 PM , Rating: 1
barking dogs don't bite.

RE: I heard that...
By Myopic on 1/26/2013 11:58:59 PM , Rating: 4
The funding for most of these papers was public. That means the articles were basically public property. That means BLOCKING the dissemination should have been the crime. That was the whole point of Swartz's "thieving"
As far as blaming the DOJ, yeah, I would. And Congress for eroding the power of the people for the groups that pay for their campaigns. I'd like to see the companies get hacked too. If I knew how I'd be doing it, too.

RE: I heard that...
By kmmatney on 1/27/2013 2:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
The funding for the "research" was public, but the journals have to pay for everything to do with getting things published - editing, printing, organization costs, etc...

RE: I heard that...
By Strunf on 1/28/2013 8:26:37 AM , Rating: 3
I work for a research group and journals do little to nothing, when you want to publish a paper on a given journal you check their guidelines, as in number of pages, image size and what not, when you finally submit your paper to the journal it doesn't need any editing whatsoever.

The role of a journal is to select what papers to publish and make sure they are peer reviewed, I don't see any reason to give them some kind of ownership over something they didn't write nor actually make.

RE: I heard that...
By AnnihilatorX on 1/29/2013 5:40:42 AM , Rating: 2

sorry sir you have no idea the cost involved in journals are minimal. I am in academia.

When a academic writes a paper, the journal asks peers for reviews. The peers are us academics, and we do free proof-reading for the journal. There is zero costs involved.

Editing, yes hiring editors costs something. But the number of editors is not more than any local newspaper even with a large journal. We do most of the formating ourselves, leaving little work to be done.

Printing? Most journals forgone paper copies already.

Organisation costs? Yes, the ocasional conferences. But there are conference fees!

So, the main costs if you like, is the editors, administration and the hosting of journal websites and IT systems. However, some journals can charge $1000 for a copy of paper (that's what I heard anyway), I have seen ones which charge $200. Even $200 is ridicoulous.

We, academics, only submit papers for the benefits of the public. We get nothing in return, may be a bit of fame but that is it. Journals are merely profiteering from our hard work, although it's our choice so it is consensual. However, it is sad for the public to lose out because they can't access the research efforts without a pay wall protecting it.

RE: I heard that...
By javiergf on 1/28/2013 3:42:08 AM , Rating: 5
and while he faced 30 years in jail, before he killed himself... Jon Corzine walks free, without even a trial, after stealing 1.2 billion dollars, nobody at HSBC in prison for money laundering and nobody in jail for manipulating the LIBOR, that would be hundreds of billions stolen...
There is no justice

RE: I heard that...
By MrBlastman on 1/28/2013 11:23:32 AM , Rating: 2

America used to have priorities. We used to respect our constitution. We used to care in what matters.

Nowadays, it is all about who pays the most money to Congressmen and how much self-serving interests there are in the system. He who pays the most, gets the most.

Corzine... oh, wait, he's anointed! He is one of those Senatorial few. Nevermind his cronies and industry cohorts at large. They've all paid handsome sums and granted jobs to whoever wants them--they own the system.

So now it is all about the wrong things. Who cares about the financial corruption when you can have Nationalized Health Care, Public handouts, Entitlements and... most importantly... Gun control to keep the people weak and helpless! Guns are killing everyone! Crime is rampant and people are dying everywhere!!!!! (For the record the United States has 1/3rd the violent crime of Europe).

So, those are what matter these days. It isn't our vote that counts anymore. It is our pockets and special interests. You didn't vote for a guy that wants to serve you... they serve themselves now!

Unless you have money. Then they want to talk with you.

RE: I heard that...
By Argon18 on 1/28/2013 12:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
Amen! Very well said Blastman. So long as they keep their marketing machine going full tilt, bamboozling people into believing this is "progress", it's sadly the direction for the foreseeable future.

RE: I heard that...
By ClownPuncher on 1/28/2013 1:37:02 PM , Rating: 3
We haven't cared too much about the Constitution since the mid 1800's, sadly.

RE: I heard that...
By Ammohunt on 1/28/2013 6:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
Who still believes in the system? I mean i still believe in the Constitution but the current system that supposedly was derived from it has failed us completely. The American way died years ago! for me its just a matter of how best to insulate from the coming nastiness.

RE: I heard that...
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2013 7:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
The current system in place today exists precisely because it DOESN'T derive from it.

RE: I heard that...
By MrBlastman on 1/29/2013 10:45:51 AM , Rating: 2
We only have to look no further than one of the worst presidents in history, Lincoln (savior of the current politburo) for the source.

RE: I heard that...
By Ammohunt on 1/31/2013 11:16:04 AM , Rating: 2
I agree the champion of Federalism and the diminishing of states rights. Winners write the history to bad kids are not taught the truth that we lost the civil war.

RE: I heard that...
By Ammohunt on 1/31/2013 11:13:15 AM , Rating: 2
I swore an oath to protect it once but i have lost faith civilizations come and go perhaps its just our time.

Oh Dailytech...
By SayWhut on 1/26/13, Rating: 0
RE: Oh Dailytech...
By chµck on 1/26/13, Rating: -1
RE: Oh Dailytech...
By SayWhut on 1/26/2013 10:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
Would you ask a relevant question to further a meaningful conversation?

The moral comparison is so ridiculous it doesn't even warrant a response.

RE: Oh Dailytech...
By dsx724 on 1/27/2013 2:21:10 PM , Rating: 4
He didn't break into any computer system. He had full access to all of the articles that he downloaded.

He was charged with
1) "breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony",
2) "wire fraud",
3) "computer fraud",
4) "unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer",
5) "recklessly damaging a protected computer"

1) he didn't break in anywhere nor did he commit a felony
2 & 3) there was no intent to deceive so thus no fraud
4) it was lawful for him to obtain the information, do not confuse terms of service with law
5) he didn't damage any computer system, jstor was looking into high utilization and took the service down

You have no idea what you're talking about so refrain from making yourself look ignorant.

RE: Oh Dailytech...
By kmmatney on 1/27/2013 2:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
He was asking for trouble...

When I was an engineering student, I had free access to journal articles. Now that I have a real job, and I don't have that anymore - but if I really need something I'll have a university friend get it, or I take my ass to the University library. While it sucks that they came down on him so hard, he was asking for trouble.

RE: Oh Dailytech...
By dsx724 on 1/27/2013 4:58:56 PM , Rating: 1
Which rights activist didn't "ask for trouble"? Its part of challenging the status quo. Let us bankrupt all of them through legal fees and then threaten them with 30 years of prison on government dime.

RE: Oh Dailytech...
By xti on 1/28/2013 11:18:41 AM , Rating: 3
you are completely naive to think he didnt know exactly what he was doing and aware of the consequences. He was expressing his opinion or something equally dumb sounding, and he got caught.

US Gov didnt pull a trigger, didnt make him OD, didnt make him jump on a bike with no seat, whatever he did...he did it on his own will because he was a coward.

surprised anon is supporting a coward, so to me sounds like they were looking for a reason to 'unleash the fury'.

By drycrust3 on 1/27/2013 2:39:36 PM , Rating: 1
Swartz came under fire after he accessed JSTOR database with a personal laptop in 2011. Using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT's) data network, Swartz downloaded over 4 million academic journals in an effort to make them freely available to the public.

For those that don't know, JSTOR stands for "Journal STORage". It is an online library for scientific journals. According to Wikipedia more than 7000 institutions in 150 countries have access to it. It is based upon the fact that the handling and storing of a paper copy of a journal costs a lot more than it does for an electronic copy.
One of the very important points of the current system of including citations with a scientific research paper is so that everyone knows where you got your information from. JSTOR maintain an authentic copy of the originally published peer reviewed article. If Swartz had released the stolen data then it would have been possible to re-edit those journals so they said something other than what the authors of a paper had originally had said, meaning that all of those 4 million academic journals would have become junk. They would no longer have had peer reviewed status. No one could be sure whether a paper did actually say something, especially if there were multiple copies of a paper that each said slightly different things.
One consequence would have been that the academic world would have had to boycott the pirated journals and had to rely solely on those that are printed or within JSTOR, which is pretty much what the current situation is.
Another point which Swartz had overlooked is that in time JSTOR will become free or have cheap subscriptions for those that aren't a member of an institution.
For those that don't know, JSTOR isn't the only online library that offers access to academic journals, there are lots of them, and some of them claim to be free.

By DrizztVD on 1/28/2013 7:24:46 AM , Rating: 3
If Swartz had released the stolen data then it would have been possible to re-edit those journals so they said something other than what the authors of a paper had originally had said, meaning that all of those 4 million academic journals would have become junk.

Your point really is invalid. While some online Vandals might find the time to carefully indoctrinate 4 million papers in such a way that the people (mostly really smart) reading them won't realize the bogus change, if you just log on to the existing JSOR database you will obviously have the original copy. Why in the world do you need to cite the pirated version if you are in the position to be citing anything?

No this case really has no harm to JSOR, using your argument this is easy then to prove since the people who will be citing the journals will still have a need to be affiliated with a recognized database (Or risk citing modified papers). This implies that if a leak took place the common guy would have benefited from free access, while in no way undermining the existing infrastructure.

A Lesson for Anonymous
By TheEinstein on 1/26/2013 6:26:59 PM , Rating: 3
When you seek a large, intrusive, "take care of everything" Government then this is what you will get.

Our Federal Government should be reduced as much in size and scope and local, aka far more accountable (and disruptable if need be) Government should be used to meet your desires.

So far I see nothing big... and I doubt I will.

Was it really a suicide?
By craniumbox on 1/28/2013 1:03:05 AM , Rating: 2
or was it made to look like a suicide?

By Phoenix7 on 1/28/2013 9:21:27 AM , Rating: 2
*grabs popcorn, insert jail time

@###@ please...
By maxxcool on 1/28/2013 11:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
Anono-tards take your best shot. You are a joke, Had you the ability do do damage you would have done so already. nobody cares about doxing anymore.

blow up a power plant, shut down all of Manhattan's traffic lights and you will have my interest .. 'till then ... meh, new topic please.

By Argon18 on 1/28/2013 12:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
These "anonymous" jokers are a bunch of criminals themselves. So is this guy who killed himself. Stealing is stealing. Copying someone's stuff and handing it out for free is stealing from the owner of that stuff. Hope they all end up in federal rape-me-in-the-ass prison real soon.

show me the money
By bh192012 on 1/28/2013 5:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wake me up when someone actually releases some "secret" that anyone cares about. Between Assange, Anonymous, McKinnon and various other people who seem hell bent on exposing US Government secrets, I've yet to see anything the government has had to answer for.

I'm beginning to think the US doesn't have any controversial secrets. Maybe Anon is really a flase flag operation, setup to prove the US isn't hiding anything interesting?

By talikarni on 1/28/2013 5:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
With most of the media outlets in Oblahblahs pocket, you think any of them care about information gleaned from these attacks? The only thing most will report is the attacks themselves criminalizing hackers (just like they blame guns for what people do with them), not the material Anonymous gets and releases, much of it will stay buried by the news outlets.

Love these people
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2013 7:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
Speaking of the family and Anonymous.

So I guess crime is ok as long as one doesn't personally benefit from it. How is it intimidation or overreach to try one for crimes?

Now do I agree with the punishment they seemed to want to subject him to? No. But that doesn't mean that would actually have been the punishment he received. And how was suicide his only recourse? How about the court system and our laws which bar cruel and unusual punishment for crimes. I'd say 35 years in prison for releasing some research papers would have met that justification. But no, instead he was a coward and killed himself because he wasn't prepared to face the potential consequences of his actions. That he deserved to get off scott free.

The sooner my generation realizes and accepts that you make choices in life and must live with the consequences, regardless of how unfair they might seem, the sooner we might actually start growing as a society and a civilization again. Right now we're not just in a decline, we're in a freefall. Both morally and ethically.

By Shadat on 1/29/2013 1:52:22 PM , Rating: 2
Sign to make the DOJ accountable for Aaron Swartz death

By LenaSmithe22 on 1/29/2013 7:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
If you think Richard`s story is astonishing..., a month-back my mum's boy friend basically easily made $7162 working twelve hour's a week an their house and there roomate's mother`s neighbour has been doing this for 9-months and made over $7162 part time on their pc. applie the guidelines available on this page,Great60.comCHECK IT OUT

By HelenaSmithe22 on 1/30/2013 7:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
upto I saw the receipt four $9655, I accept friends brother woz like they say truley earning money in their spare time on their apple labtop.. there friends cousin haz done this for under twenty months and resently cleard the loans on their apartment and purchased a gorgeous Honda NSX. read more at, Great60.comCHECK IT OUT

This should be good
By Beenthere on 1/26/13, Rating: -1
Sad :'(
By vol7ron on 1/26/13, Rating: -1
RE: Sad :'(
By ERROR666 on 1/26/2013 6:07:22 PM , Rating: 4
This is not the point at all. The point is that the government feels it's perfectly fine to ruin anybody's life just because they feel like it. His case was closed. There was no damage done. There's nothing else needs to happen and despite all this the system one day woke up and decided to f*** this guy a little more.
And there was nothing he could do. Nobody has as many resources as the government and fighting it is impossible.
On the other hand Anonymous is of course not going to reach any agreement, but it is at least trying to bring up those issues. And this is much more than the other 99% are doing.

RE: Sad :'(
By Lord 666 on 1/26/2013 6:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
Do you really believe it was suicide? No pending criminal investigation is worth taking your life. Mitnick did five years.

Look at the timing of everything over the past 45 days. Check out page 225 in "Behold a pale horse." An unprecedented 23 executive orders were signed on 1/16, yet are still unavailable publicly. Yet, Te'o has been the focus of the media? Let's not forget the razzie award robbie Parker deserves.

RE: Sad :'(
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2013 7:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think you should look up what "treason and rebellion" mean.

I've come a full 180 on my view of these hacker groups. Sometimes they miss the mark, but this time they have the right target. This Administration needs a huge wake up call. I doubt this will be it, but it's a start.

RE: Sad :'(
By wordsworm on 1/27/2013 1:02:44 AM , Rating: 2
Bradley Manning proved to the world that it doesn't matter what the US government does. It is above prosecution. This isn't going to wake anyone up.

RE: Sad :'(
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sad :'(
By wordsworm on 1/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sad :'(
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sad :'(
By roykahn on 1/27/2013 9:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
Wordsworm, I fully agree with you. Only a sex scandal can unseat a member of the US elite these days. That applies to the financial system elites as well. All the crimes committed by the elite just get washed away by the media and explained away by the criminals. Hell, just look at Obama's response to investigating the Bush-era torture program. Some BS about him preferring to look forwards and not backwards (the refuge of criminals). They can talk their way out of almost anything.

As for this reclaimer chap - he has already proven his value to this conversation by stating that he doesn't care about what the US does to other countries. Yet, he strangely continues to defend its actions and policies. If a person like him holds on to the idea that the actions of one's own country are always justifiable no matter what the atrocities, then there's little point debating the issue. As long as one dehumanizes the "enemy", then anything is permissable. Yes, the propaganda machine manufactured by the Nazis is still strong! However, for someone who is willing to be open-minded and look at facts, then just use the Golden Rule on US foreign policies and see how they almost always fail it.

RE: Sad :'(
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/2013 10:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
he has already proven his value to this conversation by stating that he doesn't care about what the US does to other countries.

Right, well said. 'Cause it's not like context matters in online discussions anyway. Yes I "care" what we do in other countries. Do I think it matters much if our domestic policy leads to financial ruin, a fascist Government, and a total loss of public trust? Frankly no.

Nice Godwin too. TOTALLY appropriate bringing the Nazi's up here lol.

This is why I just couldn't stay away from DT lol. Nowhere on the 'net can you find a more concentrated strain of stupid.

RE: Sad :'(
By croc on 1/28/2013 1:58:43 AM , Rating: 1
Nice to see that Reclaimer has expanded his vocabulary. Now he has learned how to spell Godwin.

RE: Sad :'(
By roykahn on 1/28/2013 6:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
TOTALLY appropriate bringing the Nazi's up here lol

It's obvious why you don't understand its appropriateness. Your mind just shuts off as soon as you read the word "Nazi" and your emotions take over. It's an understandable response given the lack of educated political debate these days.

Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and read some of the propaganda techniques employed by the Nazis. Discover how Joseph Goebbels' principles would perfectly fit in with today's political elite. Then you might think differently before believing anything your government tells you about "national security", "terrorism", "extremists", "enemy combatants", "protecting our freedom", etc.

RE: Sad :'(
By wordsworm on 2/1/2013 1:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
Any time I want to see what's wrong with America, I just have to read your posts.

The warriors you call terrorists are mostly just warriors who don't board airplanes with the intention of flying them into WTC. Many of them carry guns and explosives and fight their war the only way they can. Sexually degrading them and torturing them demonstrated to the world that America did not and does not care at all about the conventions except as a legal tool to execute captured enemies of state and to embargo rogue states.

RE: Sad :'(
By vol7ron on 2/5/2013 8:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think you should look up what they mean - they were used correctly.

You and I have never heard of most of the hacker groups the government reacts to. This hardly will do anything.

Also this article is only one sensational spin of the story, to make others think that it was pressure and this prosecution that caused this suicide. Already in these comments there are conspiracy theories that it wasn't a suicide, and there will be other stories stating it wasn't an intentional suicide. Don't believe everything you read or think that this stunt will change anything.

As I stated it was a tragedy, regardless. The fact that I was downrated shows that people don't read, because it's my final point that should be focused on ... DT does a good job at shedding light on the programming community and memorializing those that were contributors (liked or hated).

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki