Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 4 Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (4 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   1 comment
OpEdNews Op Eds

Anonymous Group Targeted By Gov't Authorities Yesterday Now Helping Egyptians Revolt

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Kevin Gosztola     Permalink
      (Page 2 of 3 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Well Said 2   Supported 2  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 1/28/11

Author 7416
Become a Fan
  (66 fans)


It explicitly outlined a reminder that "facilitating or conducting a DDoS attack is illegal, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, as well as exposing participants to significant civil liability." And it placed the U.S. warrants in the context of the five arrests of five individuals in the UK yesterday who are suspected of being involved in the DDoS attacks while also explaining the FBI is working with "international law enforcement partners."


The cyber investigation, according to the release, is getting assistance from the National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance, an alliance the Washington Post reported in 2007 is "an investigative center with 18 agents from the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the U.S. Postal Service" that "receives data and assistance from more than 300 private companies and other anti-fraud groups." Primarily, students and researchers from Carnegie Mellon University, which is nearby, work to "counter malicious programs." As of 2007, the alliance was primarily focused on "pharmaceutical fraud, extortion and schemes to steal data from bank customers as they log in to their accounts" and on looking into the manipulation of stock markets.


Ryan Singel, who blogs for, points out, "In the attacks on the financial-service companies, thousands downloaded a tool called LOIC -- or Low Orbit Ion Cannon -- that joined their computer to the group attack on the target of the moment. However, the tool did nothing to hide a user's IP address, making it possible for the target website to hand its server logs over to the authorities to track users down by their IP addresses." 

What Singel is describing is something central to debates over what is known as data retention. Just this week, the U.S. Department of Justice renewed calls for mandatory data retention requirements that would require companies or organizations to retain customer usage data for up to two years to "fight Internet crimes."

Worldwide, moves by authorities to clampdown on privacy of information is exactly why organizations or companies that don't want to have to give up their information are interested in anonymizing traffic to neutralize data retention laws. For example, WikiLeaks' ISP reported January 27 that it was fighting back against the European Data Retention Directive by running all customer traffic through an encrypted virtual private network (VPN), which would mean they wouldn't know what their customers are doing, there would not be much to log, and with little to log there would never be anything useful in the logs if authorities or anti-piracy companies requested to see the logs.


The FBI likely has, according to Department of Justice guidelines cited in 2007 by Wired, complete freedom to "allow the bureau to run long-term "criminal intelligence' investigations" with no specific arrests or prosecutions anticipated, provided the target is a terrorist group or a "racketeering enterprise." The FBI probably has categorized anyone working for or with Anonymous as a cyber-terrorist.


Central to this unfolding FBI investigation are issues of privacy. There also seems to be a level of abuse by authorities who seize property without saying exactly why they are making seizures, without presenting evidence. But, the FBI, as has been the case with raids and subpoenas on antiwar, labor, and solidarity activists in recent months, do not have to present evidence. They have complete authority as part of investigations to take someone's computer equipment and return it months later or keep it indefinitely.


About Anonymous

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3


- Advertisement -

Must Read 2   Well Said 2   Supported 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, "Unauthorized Disclosure." He was an editor for

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

We Do Not Consent to Warrantless "Porno-Scanning" in Airports

Do They Put Lipstick on Pigs at the Funny Farm?

How Private Prison Corporations Hope Arizona's SB1070 Will Lead to Internment Camps for Illegals

Why the Battle Against TSA Groping and Body Scanners is Justified

Give Obama a Chance to Do What?