I don't get it, they're demanding computer crime law reform by doing something that obviously is and should be illegal?
EDIT: Now it's unclear to me whether Anonymous placed the spreadsheet on the .gov server, or they simply found it and exposed it. If it's the latter then it makes more sense, but I suspect it's the former.
>Now it's unclear to me whether Anonymous placed the spreadsheet on the .gov server, or they simply found it and exposed it.
Consider the ".gov" URL that this was hosted at. If Anonymous had just found and exposed this, we'd have to accept a high likelihood that the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center (a state government agency that appears to have nothing to do with banking) not only has information from bank executives across the US, but that they hosted it on their website under the filename "oops-we-did-it-again.html."
Should it be illegal? They shared a public link to a spreadsheet exposed on a .gov address. If anything, it's the owner of that .gov address that needs to get in trouble for placing sensitive documents in a publicly accessible location.
> doing something that obviously is and should be illegal?
I guess it depends on the intent of making something illegal. If the intent is to improve on the security of the internet, then making these kinds of acts illegal will not have any change on the actual security of the internet.
My feeling is that holding people responsible for an insecure system would be a better motivator for improving computer security: the opposite of what is happening now.
I was just discussing this with a lawyer friend who is concerned that it is only a matter of time before anonymous gets classified as a domestic terrorist group. The PATRIOT act defines domestic terrorism as:
> activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Condition C is met, condition B(ii) is pretty much declared. How much of a stretch would it be for a federal prosecutor to argue that condition A is satisfied because exposing personal information of powerful people is dangerous to their lives?
The feds have been investigating the bankers, and I'm sure they had access to all that information. The feds are having their own terrorist plots (that then they "uncover" themselves). Is it really that far fetched for this to have happened, too?
It's much more likely that you're witnessing the confluence of confirmation bias and the inherent ambiguity created by many different sets of people operating under the same name. We have, in fact, been through this before with "Anonymous", because anybody can claim to be "Anonymous". (The post on reddit is hilariously out of touch with this fundamental reality.)
You, personally, have been making claims of false flag attacks for years with a similar lack of evidence. (e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2659640) You might just be seeing what you want to see, instead of drawing the most accurate conclusions you can make based on the available evidence.
Yes, except, the feds can join Anonymous if they wish. That's half of the point of Anonymous - it's not a distinct group of people. It's just a banner.
Anonymous is really embarrassing themselves. Trying to connect the dots from doxxing "management at community banks" back to Aaron Swartz is so cringe worthy I can only shrug and assume they're doing it for the lulz.
I'll take the secret police over secret vigilantes, if for no other reason that the policy of maintaining a secret police force can be debated as a matter of public policy, whereas vigilantes answer to no one.
Another false-flag operation by the US Government, same as the ussc.gov fiasco. Escalating seems to be very effective at discrediting Anonymous based on the comments here and on reddit.
That's sort of the whole point, isn't it? Anonymous, by definition, is anyone (including employees of the US Government) acting on any motivation (including discrediting itself or other groups within itself), so long as they don't sign their name at the end.
It would be interesting to see how many factions exist within the cloud of self important people that capitalize the letter 'A' when they withhold their name.
[+] [-] tlrobinson|13 years ago|reply
EDIT: Now it's unclear to me whether Anonymous placed the spreadsheet on the .gov server, or they simply found it and exposed it. If it's the latter then it makes more sense, but I suspect it's the former.
[+] [-] ben1040|13 years ago|reply
Consider the ".gov" URL that this was hosted at. If Anonymous had just found and exposed this, we'd have to accept a high likelihood that the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center (a state government agency that appears to have nothing to do with banking) not only has information from bank executives across the US, but that they hosted it on their website under the filename "oops-we-did-it-again.html."
[+] [-] CountHackulus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] john_b|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickff|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericHosick|13 years ago|reply
I guess it depends on the intent of making something illegal. If the intent is to improve on the security of the internet, then making these kinds of acts illegal will not have any change on the actual security of the internet.
My feeling is that holding people responsible for an insecure system would be a better motivator for improving computer security: the opposite of what is happening now.
[+] [-] meddlepal|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiggy2011|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krrrh|13 years ago|reply
> activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Condition C is met, condition B(ii) is pretty much declared. How much of a stretch would it be for a federal prosecutor to argue that condition A is satisfied because exposing personal information of powerful people is dangerous to their lives?
[+] [-] drivingmenuts|13 years ago|reply
A is the problem. If Congress expands that to economic crimes, then it's instant terrorist.
[+] [-] nextparadigms|13 years ago|reply
And I may have been right:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/17v9zy/anonymous...
The feds have been investigating the bankers, and I'm sure they had access to all that information. The feds are having their own terrorist plots (that then they "uncover" themselves). Is it really that far fetched for this to have happened, too?
[+] [-] GHFigs|13 years ago|reply
You, personally, have been making claims of false flag attacks for years with a similar lack of evidence. (e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2659640) You might just be seeing what you want to see, instead of drawing the most accurate conclusions you can make based on the available evidence.
[+] [-] weareconvo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deleted_account|13 years ago|reply
Anonymous is really embarrassing themselves. Trying to connect the dots from doxxing "management at community banks" back to Aaron Swartz is so cringe worthy I can only shrug and assume they're doing it for the lulz.
row row fight the powah, I guess.
[+] [-] sageikosa|13 years ago|reply
Edit: though I'd rather have neither.
[+] [-] ihsw|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oconnore|13 years ago|reply
It would be interesting to see how many factions exist within the cloud of self important people that capitalize the letter 'A' when they withhold their name.
[+] [-] youngerdryas|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trg2|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bwhite|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sigzero|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hack_edu|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] youngerdryas|13 years ago|reply