Major Hacker Becomes FBI Informant

[SassyLady]

Wonder how the Anonymous guys are feeling now that someone is exposing them?





<tbody>
Hackers busted after one becomes FBI informant
By LARRY NEUMEISTER and RAPHAEL SATTER
Associated Press





</tbody>

NEW YORK (AP) -- The shadowy underworld of Internet hackers was rocked by news Tuesday that one of the world's most-wanted and most-feared computer vandals has been an FBI informant for months and helped authorities build a case against five alleged comrades.


The FBI said it captured the legendary hacker known as "Sabu" last June, and he turned out to be Hector Xavier Monsegur, 28, a self-taught, unemployed computer programmer with no college education, living on welfare in public housing in New York.


His exploits made him a hero to some in cyberspace until he made a rookie mistake - he posted something online without cloaking his IP address, or computer identity - and someone tipped off the FBI.


Soon after his arrest, he pleaded guilty and began spilling secrets, leading to charges Tuesday against five people in Europe and the U.S., including a Chicago man, and preventing more than 300 attacks along the way, authorities said.

Law enforcement officials said it marked the first time core members of the loosely organized worldwide hacking group Anonymous have been identified and charged in the U.S.


Investigators said Monsegur and the other defendants were all associated with the group, and some were also part of the elite spinoff organization that Monsegur formed last May, Lulz Security or LulzSec. "Lulz" is Internet slang for "laughs" or "amusement."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HACKING_ARRESTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-06-10-09-43


More from article:


Some Anonymous members put on a brave face.
"Anonymous is a hydra, cut off one head and we grow two back," read one defiant message posted to Twitter.
But the atmosphere in one of the group's chat rooms had an edge of panic. One Anonymous supporter discussed cleaning the group's hard drive. Another warned that if Sabu is cooperating, then "we are all going to have the FBI at are (sic) door."

Barrett Brown, a former journalist who became closely associated with Anonymous, said Sabu's cooperation with the FBI could do serious damage to Anonymous.
"He was an admired Anon," he said. "He's been a leader. People came to him with information. God knows what else he told them."

[jimnyc]

Good, the more exposed, the more get busted, the better it is. They all think they're unreachable when they commit their crimes, but they're going to find out the hard way that this isn't always the case. Same with Manning/Assange, anonymous and all the other cretins who commit crimes at will online because they think they're "anonymous".

[Thunderknuckles]

Why would they expose him for being an FBI informant now?
Seems you could do a hell of a lot more damage to the group than just building a case against 5 of them by keeping him as a secret informant.

[SassyLady]

Why would they expose him for being an FBI informant now?
Seems you could do a hell of a lot more damage to the group than just building a case against 5 of them by keeping him as a secret informant.

I believe it's because they have so much more and he's negotiating before he gives up others...or perhaps that's all he had and they are going to negotiate with those they have now to get even more. Don't know for sure.

[Noir]

It'll be interesting to see what comes of it. But the point is Anonymous itself can't be stopped, it would be like trying to stop something like Charity, it's more an idea (and a very vauge one at that) and the ideas involved are sometimes good sometimes bad depending on your perspective.

For example setting up mirrors for Wikileaks when th US Gov tried to take it down would be viewed by most here as bad.
However using the Fax and dail-tone system in Egypt to supply the citizens with as much Internet as possible when the government there shut the Internet down (except for the gov and military) during the 'Arab Spring' would be viewed by most here as good.

Even if you shut all 'anons' down, there will be people who will want to keep sites mirrored, or insure that citizens can't be cut of from the Internet by their government, in that sense, anonymous can't be made to go away.

[jimnyc]

It'll be interesting to see what comes of it. But the point is Anonymous itself can't be stopped, it would be like trying to stop something like Charity, it's more an idea (and a very vauge one at that) and the ideas involved are sometimes good sometimes bad depending on your perspective.

For example setting up mirrors for Wikileaks when th US Gov tried to take it down would be viewed by most here as bad.
However using the Fax and dail-tone system in Egypt to supply the citizens with as much Internet as possible when the government there shut the Internet down (except for the gov and military) during the 'Arab Spring' would be viewed by most here as good.

Even if you shut all 'anons' down, there will be people who will want to keep sites mirrored, or insure that citizens can't be cut of from the Internet by their government, in that sense, anonymous can't be made to go away.

Anonymous isn't about "sites" or mirrors, they are about hacking and disruption. And whether large or small, easy to capture or not, it doesn't make the actions any less wrong. And I'll applaud as each individual is captured and charged with crimes.

[Noir]

Anonymous isn't about "sites" or mirrors, they are about hacking and disruption. And whether large or small, easy to capture or not, it doesn't make the actions any less wrong. And I'll applaud as each individual is captured and charged with crimes.

You're missing the point totally. Because anonymous isn't 'about' anything.

[jimnyc]

You're missing the point totally. Because anonymous isn't 'about' anything.

Doesn't matter. Thoose that claim to be a "member", and commit crimes, will eventually be caught and charged. Sure, some will get away with it. That's how all crime/criminals are, we can't catch them all. But if crimes are committed, those doing so need to be punished.

[Noir]

Doesn't matter. Thoose that claim to be a "member", and commit crimes, will eventually be caught and charged. Sure, some will get away with it. That's how all crime/criminals are, we can't catch them all. But if crimes are committed, those doing so need to be punished.

Because when the government does it, it a-okay, but when a citizen does it, they're a criminal.

[jimnyc]

Because when the government does it, it a-okay, but when a citizen does it, they're a criminal.

Where the hell did I ever say it's ok for the government to commit crimes, Rev Jr.?

[Noir]

Where the hell did I ever say it's ok for the government to commit crimes, Rev Jr.?

Wasn't talking about you, was talking about the system.

[jimnyc]

Wasn't talking about you, was talking about the system.

Oh, well you quoted me and made your statement... Anyway, I'm just tired of the non-stop computer crimes and threats and denial of service and hacking... If they have an opportunity to catch any of these shitwads, I hope they do and I hope they prosecute to the fullest extent. And if one of them works for the government, or of the government is somehow involved, prosecute them too.

[Noir]

Oh, well you quoted me and made your statement... Anyway, I'm just tired of the non-stop computer crimes and threats and denial of service and hacking... If they have an opportunity to catch any of these shitwads, I hope they do and I hope they prosecute to the fullest extent. And if one of them works for the government, or of the government is somehow involved, prosecute them too.

When the government wants to bring down a site, they don't use DDoS, they use PIPA and SOPA (or ate last they would have were it not for the internet (and anons) doing what only it can do.)

[jimnyc]

When the government wants to bring down a site, they don't use DDoS, they use PIPA and SOPA (or ate last they would have were it not for the internet (and anons) doing what only it can do.)

I'm no fan of the proposed legislation... But I also don't have a problem if known criminals have their sites shut down. I just don't want the little guy who clicks on a link, like you said, harmed over a dumb written law.

[logroller]

Anonymous isn't about "sites" or mirrors, they are about hacking and disruption. And whether large or small, easy to capture or not, it doesn't make the actions any less wrong. And I'll applaud as each individual is captured and charged with crimes.
Doesn't make it any more or less right or wrong; it makes it illegal.

Oh, well you quoted me and made your statement... Anyway, I'm just tired of the non-stop computer crimes and threats and denial of service and hacking... If they have an opportunity to catch any of these shitwads, I hope they do and I hope they prosecute to the fullest extent. And if one of them works for the government, or of the government is somehow involved, prosecute them too.

But you can't prosecute someone when the information indicting them was obtained illegally.

If you expose top secret evidence of crimes, you're breaking the law? Kind of a catch 22-- Dont ya think?

[jimnyc]

Doesn't make it any more or less right or wrong; it makes it illegal.


But you can't prosecute someone when the information indicting them was obtained illegally.

If you expose top secret evidence of crimes, you're breaking the law? Kind of a catch 22-- Dont ya think?

IF that were too happen, but I don't see any indictments being obtained illegally. In this case, one of their own fellow blowhards is ratting on them.

[logroller]

IF that were too happen, but I don't see any indictments being obtained illegally. In this case, one of their own fellow blowhards is ratting on them.

Nor do I, that's point. We don't see it, nor will we... Not to say it doesn't happen though. When wikileaks exposes collusion between Our government and some blowhard investigation company who uses less than legal means of obtaining information, they don't punish themselves or their partners-- they go after wikileaks using sealed indictments to avoid any further exposure. I get why-- because the business of power IS power and information IS power. Govt doesn't like losing power; if they can gain information, then you get a pass; if you compromise their power-- the government goes after you like feral dog on a soup bone. But to say that laws are enforced against all those who break the law is farcical-- it simply doesn't happen, only when it benefits the powers that be.

[jimnyc]

Nor do I, that's point. We don't see it, nor will we... Not to say it doesn't happen though. When wikileaks exposes collusion between Our government and some blowhard investigation company who uses less than legal means of obtaining information, they don't punish themselves or their partners-- they go after wikileaks using sealed indictments to avoid any further exposure. I get why-- because the business of power IS power and information IS power. Govt doesn't like losing power; if they can gain information, then you get a pass; if you compromise their power-- the government goes after you like feral dog on a soup bone. But to say that laws are enforced against all those who break the law is farcical-- it simply doesn't happen, only when it benefits the powers that be.

Agreed. And in a perfect world, we would arrest/convict those scumbags too. And while I'm not thrilled it's NOT happening, I can still be pleased with hackers and those with criminal intent on the internet being arrested. Maybe someday I can have the pleasure of posting here about one in power being busted too.

[logroller]

Agreed. And in a perfect world, we would arrest/convict those scumbags too. And while I'm not thrilled it's NOT happening, I can still be pleased with hackers and those with criminal intent on the internet being arrested. Maybe someday I can have the pleasure of posting here about one in power being busted too.
Indeed. The question then, is by what means will this occur? Power to the People I say. And though I agree there is a great deal of malice involved with hacking and RARELY does it serve a higher purpose-- there is little room to doubt that it never does. The internet has really shook the foundation of representative government. When information traveled at a snails pace, having distance between the people and the decision makers was a necessary precept. In today's world, the breadth and speed information is disseminated circumvents the information gap to which representative government appealed; undermining the ability of our representatives to act without immediate public reprisal. Just look at the US Congress, they're practically incapacitated-- can't even pass a budget. Meanwhile the executive branch meanders along unbridled and undercover, issuing executive orders in stark contrast to even the slightest sense of our Constitution's cardinal intentions -- its just sickening, but I guess not sickening enough. As our Founders once surmised: ...all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

[jimnyc]

Here's another example, the Vatican. Because they have different beliefs, they get their site attacked and are likely spending a pretty penny to get operations back up and running, or rerouting the bogus traffic. They're free, at least here, to express their disdain for the Church and their beliefs, but this is no more than a blatant criminal act and those behind it should be charged, if caught.


Hackers from the Italian branch of the group, Anonymous, took down the Vatican website in protest over Roman Catholic liturgies and doctrines, such as the church's opposition to contraception and abortion.

"Anonymous has decided to put your site under siege in response to your doctrine, liturgy and the absurd and anachronistic rules that your profit-making organization spreads around the world," the Anonymous website explained, per a Reuters translation.

The hackers cited common complaints about the Catholics in recent years, such as the child-molesting scandal, but they also seem motivated by the recent fight over the contraception mandate and religious liberty. "You refuse to declare objects and practices [the] result of progress, such as condoms or abortion," the Anonymous hackers wrote to the Vatican.

Vatican officials are working to get the site back online.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/hacktivists-attack-vatican-over-liturgy-condoms/415701

[logroller]

Here's another example, the Vatican. Because they have different beliefs, they get their site attacked and are likely spending a pretty penny to get operations back up and running, or rerouting the bogus traffic. They're free, at least here, to express their disdain for the Church and their beliefs, but this is no more than a blatant criminal act and those behind it should be charged, if caught.



http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/hacktivists-attack-vatican-over-liturgy-condoms/415701

I don't need examples to explain the difference between someone exposing information and suppressing it! I understand hacking to be criminal because it violates either a right to privacy or free speech. Your example clearly indicates the latter. In matters of public or national security, it seems hypocritical for any entity to prescribe a process they can violate another's privacy, while coextensively claiming their own escapes public scrutiny. That's what I see happening; and not to say anon is the robin hood of Nottingham.net, but some of the information I've seen exposed is troubling to say the least and I might be able to understand why, except those who inform me of such activities are prosecuted. Which leads me to ponder ulterior motives. Whilst you lead to me to believe my ignorance was for my protection...so many quotes, so little time-- so I'll paraphrase Ben franklin-- if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

[SassyLady]

I personally think it is hypocritical for Anon to think that what the government is doing and big corporations are doing is wrong and yet think they are above it all.

[logroller]

I personally think it is hypocritical for Anon to think that what the government is doing and big corporations are doing is wrong and yet think they are above it all.
if so, the hypocrisy goes both ways IMHO. I suppose they taunt the powers that be; but like most criminals, they never think they'll get caught, becoming emboldened as time goes on. They hide like vandalous gang wanna-bes...hardly above anything, and I think deep down they know it. If anything, the OP is a case of If you can't beat em...join em.