PSA: Do not click in links posted on Anon's Twitter account.

[PeaceNikki]

I know some of you foolishly support what they do and are doing, but they're committing crimes.

ETA: never mind, that account was suspended. But they'll be back and you should proceed with caution when they are.

[smiley]

1. foolishly support?

.... um ok

Its only a crime because someone, somewhere says it is.

[PeaceNikki]

2. "Leaking" people's credit card numbers and criminally attacking sites is criminal.

[originalpckelly]

7. "I just found a bunch of credit card numbers!"

"Where! How?"

"I just did."

"I don't believe you."

"Here (insert the credit card numbers to show get.)"

They're showing their power, they do not probably intend to use them. They wouldn't post them for the world to see and create such a trail. Do you get it? You never, but never, tell people on twitter that kind of stuff if you intend to use them. If they wanted to do that, there are tons of websites out there where hackers share CC #s all the time. Where they could even sell them.

No, they didn't intend to hurt anyone, just show how fucked up the system is.

And most of these processors could look to see if there is fraudulent activity on the cards.

[PeaceNikki]

8. Try to justify it all you want. It's still criminal.

[originalpckelly]

11. Who's the one who's really responsible: the people they hacked...

or the hackers?

They're just pointing out vulnerabilities in the system. If they wanted to harm people, they would have hacked without doing that. If anything, this is a service.

[PeaceNikki]

12. lol, I bet you're a super successful criminal defense lawyer, huh?

:rofl:

[originalpckelly]

20. Killing is not legal in normal circumstances, we still manage to do it in wars.

This is a cyberwar. And one I support. I'd much rather have a few people with bad credit, than a few people dead. If only we could convince the whole world to fight this way.

[Renew Deal]

15. The hackers.

White hat hacking is illegal too, but this isn't about that. How is posting credit card numbers part of "pointing out vulnerabilities."

[EFerrari]

16. What does that mean to you?

I don't support putting civilians at risk or putting DU in harm's way, but "criminal" also has meant providing safe abortions when they were illegal, harboring escaped slaves, selling medical marijuana to cancer patients, marrying gay couples.

The admins may have to pick a side soon (I hope they don't, on top of everything else) but in the mean time, abstractions like "criminal" don't really shed light on this situation, Nikki.

[PeaceNikki]

18. DDoS attacks are criminal. Posting hundreds of consumer c/c #'s is criminal and not abstract.

At all.

[EFerrari]

23. So, you have yourself an endless loop there. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

24. Um... so you seriously compare these actions to women's reproductive rights? Slavery?

That's crazy.

[EFerrari]

29. No, I'm asking about your use of "criminal".

It's wrong because it's criminal and it's criminal because it's wrong.

Tossing out "criminal" is not a rationale. It's an appeal to authority.

[PeaceNikki]

34. Do you not believe that DDoS attacks are a federal crime?

Or don't agree with the fact that they are? Or are they a crime when done against people you like and not when for a cause you support? I am not following you.

[northernlights]

37. so does that mean the Feds committed a crime when they

engaged in DDOS attacks against Wikileaks?

[Pavulon]

39. Did they actually do that?

is it a felony to kill people in pakistan?

[PeaceNikki]

40. In theory, yes. I don't buy into the theory that the "Feds" did that.

But if they did, sure, it's criminal.

[EFerrari]

43. If DDos attacks are a federal crime

what should be done about those attacks by our government on Wikileaks this week?

Or, do you think that only non-government agents can commit crimes?

I'm saying, that using the law as a measure isn't adequate in a system that habitually ignores the law.

I'm not okay with exposing anyone's card number. That's not it. But the bigger picture is, saying something is illegal or criminal loses meaning if your own government doesn't respect the law.

[PeaceNikki]

46. Saying that the "government" was responsible for the attacks on WL is speculation at best

And even if they are, it certainly doesn't give free reign to the rest of society to commit crimes.

[EFerrari]

58. But the government is suppose to govern, i.e., lead.

Yes, "everyone is doing it" is an immoral bs argument. But our government is supposed to lead on this. This is the job.

[PeaceNikki]

60. They're the government, not your mom and dad, ffs.

[EFerrari]

62. You must know the difference between leaders and parents.

:)

[PeaceNikki]

63. Maybe it's more similar than I originally thought.

God knows I heard "Do as I say, not as I do" enough growing up.

:D

[EFerrari]

67. You've got it.

:)

[timtom]

55. And THAT...THAT

is the meaning of "to beg the question."

(Pardon my little aside here, but it was a perfect illustration.)

I also agree with you about the use of "criminal," though I would declare that the US has been conducting criminal acts of the greatest magnitude for quite a long time.

[EFerrari]

61. Agreed. n/t

[bvar22]

81. So was throwing all that tea in the harbor.

:patriot:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PeaceNikki]

41. :*

[EmilyKent]

3. I support freedom..

That's worthwhile.

[PeaceNikki]

5. Sounds like you support anarchy.

It's really romantic in punk music, but shitty in practice.

[originalpckelly]

9. There's no way anarchy exists for a long time. Order usually forms.

It would be like the wild west, eventually people get sick of that shit and set up systems to defeat it.

[blondeatlast]

17. C'mon--Somalia is LOVELY this time of year... nt

[EmilyKent]

48. People here claim to want revolution.

But when one starts, everybody scatters. :rofl:

[name not needed]

80. So do I, but I also like my credit card number not being out there for everyone to see.

[Greyhound]

4. Be afraid, be very afraid...

:rofl:

[PeaceNikki]

6. OK, fine - open up the link and gaze the fuck away at the hundreds of consumer credit cards

I am not saying be afraid, I am saying don't be fucking stupid.

[Greyhound]

19. Just quit while you're behind.

Visa, MC, BofA, Citi, ad infinitum, have had their systems compromised regularly for years and years. Black Hat Hackers don't care about your $10,000 limit gold card, they get access to hundreds of thousands of cards like yours all at once. And the banks just let it go, raise your rates and fee, and pretend all is well.

Now go help America and buy something big and Chinese.
:eyes:

[PeaceNikki]

27. lolz.

Telling me to "quit" warning people not to get themselves tied up in criminal activity... Hilarious.

See... Anon has an advantage over the typical user. They aren't stupid and they know how to protect themselves. The average DUer probably doesn't understand the harm one can inflict on their system by clicking blind links posted by people like them.

Whatever, click away. Hope that works out well for you, pal!

[Greyhound]

47. So we've established that you don't know what you're talking about, but you're

very worried about some mysterious "criminal activity" that the evil/magical computer people are engaging in, unbeknownst to the innocent DU clicker. Just what is this "criminal activity"? The fact that they are able to bring a website down?

You can download a tool and get a few thousand of your friends together and bring down a website for awhile. You can also download the plans to build a bomb, convert a gun to full auto, or make a crazy-good red velvet cake. None of which justifies your attempt to spread baseless fear on this board.

[PeaceNikki]

53. I know what I am talking about.

It's not fear-mongering to warn people that they can get malware and viruses by clicking on blind links. Or that blind links can open a file with hundreds of consumer credit cards.

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

10. anarchy is the new buzzword/talking point

Heard a former Clinton speechwriter on NPR today about wikileaks and anon: They're anarchists! Anarchists! Be scared of anarchist!

Funny stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GqeO2H8J0Q

[NutmegYankee]

33. It isn't a buzz word. I had labeled it anarchy last week.

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

35. should have copyrighted it

Because it's everywhere now.

[NutmegYankee]

38. It's a good description of this ideology and subsequent actions. nt

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

42. perhaps

I just don't think it's an insult or something to be scared of. It's a loaded word often used just to scare people.

If someone is making a serious case, which you may have been doing, I have no idea, I wasn't there, that it has something to do with anarchism the ideology or anarchy in the sense of people who want chaos, then that's good. I just don't think most people are making that advanced of an argument - I think they're using it the same way republicans use "socialist" to scare people who already are somewhat scared.

[NutmegYankee]

45. I was thinking of the ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

There are differing variants on how society would be ordered. Most I believe just want to destroy or vastly alter the "current" system in place. With respect to our financial giants, not all together a bad idea...

[EmilyKent]

50. T'isn't anarchy, just new tech.

And it's blowing the old order away...which is good. :D

[NutmegYankee]

52. I wasn't referring to WL, I was referring to it's supporters

[TorchTheWitch]

13. clue me in on how this possibly could be helpful to Assange/Wikileaks

Damn, what an epic fucking failure.

The whole "operation payback" is an epic fucking failure and will only brutally kill any potential support for Assange/Wikileaks. And all for the petty and childish to make themselves feel better.

[PeaceNikki]

14. Oh right, there's also that.

It's ridiculous.

[krabigirl]

It isn't, but people are pissed.

[TorchTheWitch]

51. then be pissed constructively

being pissed in a way that terribly harms the ones you claim to support is epic fucking failure.

[originalpckelly]

25. This is a war. How could one guy be assasinated and it starts a world war?

It did though, that's history. Was every soldier fighting in WWI because of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand? Probably not. It was just the spark that unraveled all the tension that was built up. It's like an earthquake. Tension builds along the fault line, and then probably one area of rock starts to slip, and it release all the pent up energy. The same thing happens in human affairs. Tension has been building for a decade or so with regards to the internet and how it works, and this is the release of all that tension.

[TorchTheWitch]

54. oh bullshit

This is no war. What a fucking insult to those people that have actually dealt with war and the ugliness and brutality of it. This is nothing but petty and childish armchair warriors doing nothing but terribly HARMING what they claim to support just because they're irritated.

It's EPIC FUCKING FAILURE that is going to do nothing but seriously hurt who you claim to support.

Not one fucking iota of this is going to change journalism or do absolutely anything you want. ALL it's going to do is hurt who you claim to support. And all just because you're pissed off and want to lash out at someone.

And now you're telling me you're USING Assange and Wikileaks to push some agenda on how the internet is used? THAT'S your excuse??? Oh yeah, like they'll be ever so happy about THAT.

[PeaceNikki]

56. Thanks for that.

:thumbsup:

[TorchTheWitch]

74. you're welcome

Damn, I can't even believe the colossal stupid that's infected this place lately.

Comparing petty whining to WAR. WAR for God's sake! Jesus fucking Christ and all the saints in an outhouse without toilet paper in the dead of winter.

[ipaint]

26. I don't see any evidence of that.

Maybe among those who enjoy the fruits of defending the status quo in the US. You might convince a few here but I don't see anything to indicate the website attacks are ruining anything. In fact wikileaks keeps gaining in support and popularity proportional to the attacks on it from governments and banks around the world.

[TorchTheWitch]

64. tell yourself that

If it pisses off ONE person that can't use their PayPal account and when they find out why they can't they will be pissed off at Assange/Wikileaks. PERIOD. That's the REALITY of how people think. Inconvenience me and fuck you and the goat you rode in on is the way people think whether you like it or not.

You likely will never see the evidence because the evidence is with those people that are being inconvenienced because of this and when they find out why they've been inconvenienced they're going to be pissed off at anyone and everyone that inconvenienced them. GUARANTEED. If you aren't present in their house or office when they are inconvenienced and find out why they've been inconvenienced then you aren't going to be in any position to see any evidence. GUARANTEED that it will happen, it will happen on a huge scale and by the time you see the evidence of it it will be far too late. What are you going to do then? Say "oops, my bad?"

What a seriously stupid excuse for ignoring all logical foresight. And all just to make yourselves feel better. Congratulations by being the perpetrators of the biggest hurt you could have come up with to put on Assange and Wikileaks. You do a far better job than the government in that regard.

[ipaint]

72. Irrational claims and unstable rants on a discussion board don't prove the existence of anything

except paranoia maybe.

Good luck on your crusade, you apparently feel threatened. Or would that be inconvenienced. Poor thing.

[krabigirl]

21. I will click on whatever i want.

[PeaceNikki]

22. lol, ok, you just go right ahead and do that then with NO regard.

I'm sure that will serve you well.

[krabigirl]

28. I will do what I want. Sorry, comrade.

[TNLib]

57. I support the hackers but seriously don't click on the links

You'll get all virused up

[pipi_k]

59. Hah...be my guest too....

A few weeks ago someone posted a link to some kind of alleged PayPal scam involving someone saying they had received a payment that hadn't been sent to them.

I clicked on the link provided and was taken directly to the PayPal site...my own account page, I might add, which only came up with my user name but to which I would would have needed to type in my password (which I did not do) in order to get my full account.

Well. People said all sorts of real uncomplimentary things and said I should change my password ASAP because horrible things would happen, blah blah blah. I never did. Nothing bad happened. My PayPal account was not compromised by clicking on that link.

Yet here we have a link going to God Knows Where and people are acting like it's going to take them to Aunt Meg's Teddy Bear Site. Everything's fiiiinnnnneeeeee!!!!

ummmm...yeah.

have fun!

:+

[Doremus]

71. Your claim is as bogus today as it was weeks ago.

You cannot, do not, will not land on your Paypal account page without being logged in.
You MUST be logged in to Paypal to even grab a GLIMPSE of your account page.
What you saw was the generic LOG-IN page that your own browser had auto-filled your user ID on.

The end.
Finis.
Period.

What in god's name that has to do with Wikileaks and/or blind links I'll never know.

[PeaceNikki]

73. The poster was referring to phishing sites that can look and feel like the real thing

and are most commonly accessed when *gasp* blind links are clicked. You're right about Paypal and it sounds like this poster was saying it wasn't a phishing site in this case, but that she was warned that they are real. And they are.... which is... well, what this OP is warning people to be careful about.

[pipi_k]

78. You have missed my point

What this has to do with anything is that there was a lot less at stake there than there is with people now clicking on a link that could lead to god-knows-where and result in god-knows-what.

That, apparently, is OK with people, whereas clicking on a link that might only require someone to change a password was the virtual version of Disaster.

[girl gone mad]

30. What crimes are they committing, exactly?

[PeaceNikki]

31. DDoS attacks are criminal. Posting hundreds of consumer c/c #'s is criminal and not abstract.

Would you like me to site criminal codes? I don't get it.

[GodlessBiker]

44. And if it shown that our gov't used a DDoS attack against Wikileaks?

We shouldn't click on any gov't links?

[Violet_Crumble]

75. But don't you know, it's okay if the govt or big business does it!

It's not okay when individuals or loose-knit groups not in it for financial profit do it! ;)

[girl gone mad]

66. Yes, cite the criminal codes.

[PeaceNikki]

69. Did you lose your Google CD ROM?

In the United States, the relevant code is Title 18 Part I Chapter 47 § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i), which says that anyone who:

(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

is in violation of the law and can be fined and imprisoned for up to one year (unless there intrusion causes medical or physical harm, or unless they are already a convicted felon, or unless they seek monetary gain, in which cause the penalties go up).

So, is Paypal or Visa's website a protected computer? No, probably not. But any computer engaged in Interstate commerce is a protected computer. For example, all of the computers belonging to your ISP, which you are placing load on by your criminal activity. If it turns out you were collaborating with others in order to cause this activity to occur, say for instance, all of your buddies on Twitter, then you could also be said to be part of a conspiracy.


Here are some examples of what can happen to you:
http://www.latimes.com/wjw-news-akron-computer-hacker-sentenced-bill-oreilly,0,7522240.story
http://www.thenewnewinternet.com/2010/12/01/teenager-recruits-4chan-member-to-launch-ddos-attacks-on-australian-government/
http://media-newswire.com/release_1133513.html

[ipaint]

32. from the guardian.

11.15pm: Take any stories about hacked "lists" of credit card numbers with a large pinch of salt: they are almost certainly rubbish based on a quick analysis of the purported numbers circulating.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates?CMP=twt_gu

Maybe you can take a break from the sky is falling routine now.

[jwirr]

49. Are you guys saying that Wikileaks or their supporters are anonymous?

That they are the ones putting these credit card numbers out?

[TorchTheWitch]

65. what difference will it make?

Think the public is going to care? They'll perceive that's who it was and that's ALL that matters.

[Canuckistanian]

68. Phew! Thanks PeaceNikki, I almost clicked on a link

Then I saw your warning.

I promise, from now on I'll only stick to church-related activities and government-approved websites.

You're the greatest. :thumbsup:

[PeaceNikki]

70. Whatev. Click away. My industry will benefit when you need your PC cleaned of malware or viruses.

Keep on truckin'!

[Canuckistanian]

76. So now this has morphed into a malware warning?

Get your message straight. You're confusing the hell out of me.

Or do you even HAVE a coherent point?

[PeaceNikki]

77. You see... malware can turn your machine into a botnet used to DDoS attack.

Malware can infect your machine when you click blind links. Blind links can lead you to phishing sites. Blind links can also lead you to suddenly have hundreds of consumer credit card numbers in your possession that you didn't mean to have. Blind links are bad. Don't click them.

Or do, I don't give a fuck.

[pipi_k]

79. Not only that, but...

Apparently our government would NEVER be so sneaky and sleazy as to set up a fake "Anon" account for the sole purpose of gathering information on Wikileaks supporters....

and our government would NEVER be underhanded enough to set up fake "mirror" sites for that same purpose.

Because, you know...our government is totally transparent and above-board.

uhhhh....wait. Maybe not.



In any case, nobody could pay me enough to click on any of those links.