backtop


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:
 
Scalia.Warhead1
Kennedy.Warhead1
Thomas.Warhead1
Ginsburg.Warhead1
Breyer.Warhead1
Roberts.Warhead1
Alito.Warhead1
Sotomayor.Warhead1
Kagan.Warhead1
 

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

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.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki