LulzSec and "Anonymous" Collectives Join Forces

[Hissyspit]

Interesting...

OperationLeakS: Yes #Anonymous has join forces with the #LulzBoat @LulzSec the Governments & Banking Systems won't know what hit them #AntiSec

Salutations Lulz Lizards,

As we're aware, the government and whitehat security terrorists across the world continue to dominate and control our Internet ocean. Sitting pretty on cargo bays full of corrupt booty, they think it's acceptable to condition and enslave all vessels in sight. Our Lulz Lizard battle fleet is now declaring immediate and unremitting war on the freedom-snatching moderators of 2011.

Welcome to Operation Anti-Security (#AntiSec) - we encourage any vessel, large or small, to open fire on any government or agency that crosses their path. We fully endorse the flaunting of the word "AntiSec" on any government website defacement or physical graffiti art. We encourage you to spread the word of AntiSec far and wide, for it will be remembered. To increase efforts, we are now teaming up with the Anonymous collective and all affiliated battleships.

Whether you're sailing with us or against us, whether you hold past grudges or a burning desire to sink our lone ship, we invite you to join the rebellion. Together we can defend ourselves so that our privacy is not overrun by profiteering gluttons. Your hat can be white, gray or black, your skin and race are not important. If you're aware of the corruption, expose it now, in the name of Anti-Security.

Top priority is to steal and leak any classified government information, including email spools and documentation. Prime targets are banks and other high-ranking establishments. If they try to censor our progress, we will obliterate the censor with cannonfire anointed with lizard blood.

It's now or never. Come aboard, we're expecting you...

History begins today.

Lulz Security,
http://LulzSecurity.com/

Support: http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/manifesto.html
Support: http://www.youtube.com/user/thejuicemedia
Support: http://wikileaks.ch/
Support: http://anonyops.com/

[Gabi Hayes]

1. my first thought....should I even respond to this? what do you think,

Agent Mike?

[Hissyspit]

2. My first thought... Should I even post this?

I am not a functioning member of "Anonymous" collective, Agent Mike.

[Kurovski]

4. Agent Mike just recommended the original post!

What on earth is happening to agent Mike?

[gkhouston]

17. My first thought is that this *is* Agent Mike. n/t

[Modern_Matthew]

3. More power to them. The headlines they create are always quite enjoyable. nt

[digitaln3rd]

5. Yay for more morons sitting in their parents basement?

n/t

[loudsue]

6. This is kind of sad. The real reformers could help this globe tremendously.

The cyber army could be a great agent for good against the dark forces that run things. But they need to be as smart morally, logistically, and realistically as they are technically. If they were, they could stop the propaganda and set things right.

I wonder if that will ever happen.

[starroute]

9. I'm starting to think the "real reformers" have failed dismally

I suggested somewhere recently in discussing the Anthony Weiner affair that the problem for decades has been that the right knows it has all the money and power and is effectively imperious to attack, so it feels free to do and say all sorts of outrageous stuff. The left, in contrast, feels week and helpless, caves at the first sign of opposition, and is all too eager to throw its own to the wolves.

The ability of O'Keefe and/or Breitbart to take down ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, Weiner, and others has rubbed this lesson in our faces over and over.

In a perfect world, the left might be able to draw on the unified will of the people to call out the right on its lies and fight back against tyranny and injustice. But that just ain't happening, and there's no reason to think things are about to get any better.

So the only alternative I see is to put the fear of God into the rich and powerful by any means available. To make them feel that their privacy is not absolute, their security is a hollow sham, their reputations can and will be dragged through the gutter, and their legions of mercenaries will be broken.

LulzSec, for all their adolescent narcissism and heedlessness of who else they trample in the process, is actually doing something like that -- which I suspect is why the more save-the-world types of Anonymous may be willing to partner with them.

To use a historical analogy, the feudal system crumbled when the invention of guns enabled any peasant to take down an armored knight -- but no matter what the 2nd amendment types may think, the power of peasants with guns is no longer sufficient to fight off tyrants. Unless we can get an equally powerful disruptive technology into the hands of the masses, no amount of pious reformism will save us.

Let LulzSec and the whack-a-mole imitators that will surely follow undermine the system first. The real reforms can come later.

[loudsue]

24. I hope you're right, Starroute.

I don't see what other hope there is, either.

[piratefish08]

13. seems as though the powers that need to be fought, keep getting appointments in DC.....

we need to fight back on many fronts........

[dionysus]

7. "we will obliterate the censor with cannonfire anointed with lizard blood"

okay!

[hay rick]

19. Is lizard blood more powerful than tiger blood?

Inquiring minds...

[RyanPsych]

20. only if they have Adonis DNA

or Charlie Sheen on speed dial

[BR_Parkway]

8. I keep thinking of that classic scene at the end of Fight Club!

[mainer]

10. Are these the same folks who leaked Facebook/Twitter account info?

And are stealing money from private citizens?

[TalkingDog]

11. IMHO if you are naive enough to put real info on FaceBook/Twitter you pretty much deserve the lumps

I have only heard suggestions that they stole money. Where are the complaints from PayPal, et. al. What do they have to say about this breach?

I'm not defending criminal behavior, but I can't imagine some body walking around a city posting xerox copies of their private info on the sides of buildings and on light poles, then acting indignant and surprised when some unscrupulous person decides to use what has been offered. And when you post info on the internet that's EXACTLY what you are doing.

How is that unclear from the outset?

[no limit]

12. Blame the victim?

Do you have a bank account? So I guess if someone hacks in to your bank's servers and steals all your personal information you deserved it?

[TalkingDog]

14. Who said anything about bank accounts? Twitter and Facebook

Stop trying to create an emotionally laden straw-man argument about "victimhood" out of this. Stealing is wrong. READ MY PREVIOUS POST - "I'm not defending criminal behavior." I'm pointing out the hard facts of life. Put your crap where people can steal it and they will.

If you leave all your doors open and all your lights on while you are gone, you increase the chances of somebody stealing stuff from your house. It's called being a rational adult who can foresee the consequences of their actions or in-actions. That's why you lock your doors. And that's why you put your money in a bank. A bank's job is to protect your stuff. You put your money in a bank for that reason. At that point, you've done your due diligence.

If you want to be a "victim" in a Nanny State where all your choices and decisions are made for you, you are welcome to it.

[no limit]

15. You missed my point.

By opening up a bank account you are putting your information out where people can steal it.

The distinction you are trying to make between a bank account and a facebook account doesn't exist. In both cases you are trusting your personal information with a private company. If that private company doesn't protect that information they are the ones to blame, not you.

[TalkingDog]

16. And you missed mine: Facebook and Twitter aren't banks they are information gathering corporations

Which they then sell to advertisers.

That is the sole reason FaceBook stays in business. If FaceBook boy was legally forbidden from selling your information, he would shut FaceBook down so fast the Internets would collapse.

You can't shore up a faulty argument about the taste of fruit by saying apples and oranges are exactly the same food group and so logically should taste the same.

Drawing a privacy equivalence between FaceBook and any bank is highly flawed.

By way of illustrating the point: How many times have their been news stories where the ACLU and privacy organizations have called on banks to allow customers to opt out of information sharing?

Only one that I can recall and that was over 10 years ago.

[no limit]

23. Whats the difference between giving a bank your personal info and giving facebook your personal info

just because one is a bank and the other is a social site both have the same responsibility when it comes to protecting your personal information.

Also, I believe when you say facebook sells your personal information I have a feeling you are making that up. What information does it sell to who?

[TalkingDog]

25. Maybe this will answer your questions. Imagine your BANK doing this

http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/06/20/now-your-embarrassingjob-threatening-facebook-photos-will-haunt-you-for-seven-years/

edited to answer the original question

Facebook sells user information:
http://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+sells+user+information&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[no limit]

26. It didn't answer my question at all and you keep missing my point

When you post pictures on facebook you know those pictures are public, it is your choice to do so. However, other information you give to facebook you expect to keep private.

Facebook, just as a bank, is required to keep such information private. If they fail in that regard they are to blame, not the person that had their personal information stolen.

Your second link is a bunch of google links not a single one of which actually describes facebook selling your private information. Does it use your information to provide you with targetted ads? Absolutely. You might be in for a shock that DU does this as well. But this is not the same as selling your personal information since none of your personal information is ever sold nor given to a 3rd party.

[TalkingDog]

28. Communication is the response you get. If I don't understand you, you aren't being clear.

Face Book gets money from advertisers. Advertisers get personal data about people who click on links or don't realize their privacy controls have been "reset" after a "site revamp". Where does that fail to meet the standard of selling personal information?
(see excerpts from links below, which was on the list of google links which you evidently didn't bother to look at)

And while I agree that Face Book SHOULD keep users data private. It has been more than evident from the outset that this has never been their intention. They make money off of advertising. Advertising works best when it can be narrowly targeted. That means Face Book makes more money by giving advertisers more information.

I don't know any other way to say this so that you will comprehend. I don't BLAME people for getting data stolen. That is theft. I BLAME them for being naive in thinking that other people should be in charge of their privacy and security.

So, leave your doors and windows open and get all your possessions stolen? I think the thieves were wrong and have broken the law, but I also think the naive homeowners are culpable in the theft, for believing that they are somehow protected or exceptional.

That is not blaming the victim nor is it excusing the law breaker. It is simply a statement of a very obvious fact: Bad people will take advantage of naive people.

http://mashable.com/2010/05/20/facebook-caught-sending-user-data-to-advertisers/

Facebook, MySpace and other social networks have apparently been sending personal and identifiable information about users to advertisers without consent, despite assurances to the contrary.

Large advertising companies including Google’s DoubleClick and Yahoo’s Right Media have received information including usernames and ID numbers that could be traced back to individual profiles as users clicked on ads. The data could potentially be used to look up personal information about the user, including real name, age, occupation, location and anything else made public on the profile. Both of the aforementioned companies denied being aware of the “extra” data they were receiving and claim they have not made use of it.

The Wall Street Journal reports that since questions were raised about the practice with Facebook and MySpace, both companies have since rewritten at least some of the code that allowed transmission of identifiable data. Beyond those two companies, LiveJournal, Hi5, Xanga and Digg made the list of sites who have sent identifiable information back to advertisers when a user clicked on individual ads.

The WSJ found that Facebook went farther than most in sharing identifiable data by sending the username of the person clicking the ad as well as the username of the profile he or she was viewing at the time. This news could hardly come at a worse time for Facebook, a company that currently faces a privacy backlash potent enough to make the cover of Time Magazine this month.


http://www.financetechnews.com/how-facebook-sells-your-personal-info-and-gets-away-with-it/

Repeat after me: Facebook is a business, its job is to make money. Now, go check your Facebook privacy settings and see how you’re helping this Internet tsunami sweep through your life and contacts to add to their coffers.

snip

Each time Facebook “revamps” its features, you can believe it’s not just to make finding that old college classmate or long lost cousin easier.

The message from Joan Goodchild, senior editor of CSO (Chief Security Officer) Online, is that each time Facebook touts a re-design or a new format, you can bet your last nickel that it’s being done as an excuse to re-set your privacy controls to a Facebook-designated default that lets the site’s owners peddle your info and activities far and wide.

snip

• Your information is being shared with third parties
Facebook wants to make money, and they can do this by sharing your information with advertisers who want to market their products to you.

[no limit]

29. So it is your position Democratic Underground sells your private information?

Because everything you complain about in the above post DU does as well.

Yes, it was wrong for facebook to send the username when someone clicked on a advertisement. This is something I believe was an error and they have corrected. If you notice with most DU ads a session ID is sent along with them, do you know what is in that session ID?

You seem upset at facebook. The fact is facebook is just another business no different from a bank or from a site such as DU.

And wether the site is a bank, a social media site, or DU that site has a personal responsibility to keep your information safe. My issue is with your suggestion that if they fail at that you are the one in part to blame for it. I think that's an absolutely absurd argument.

[Hutzpa]

18. This sounds risky

this collaboration should not have happen.

Don't like it.

[Electric Monk]

21. I don't see this ending well, but at least it should be interesting to watch.

[HipChick]

22. The Goverments need to hire some of these black hats..

[Dreamer Tatum]

27. Or kill them. Either way. nt