Anonymous hacks DOJ threatens 'there will be chaos'

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

Unbeatable

Big Eyed Bug
Messages
415
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-27/anonymous-hacks-department-justice-threatens-release-secret-doj-information-warns-th


Don't what information these guys have. Apparently they threatened to be doing something really big a few years back but nothing came of it. Still you never know might be some info about the Fed, financial sector etc. in there that could end up affecting PM's

 
Last edited:
Why redact the information? Are they covering their asses??

I want to see something sick and juicy, like video of Lloyd Blankfein doing Nancy Pelosi to get some political favor or another.
 
Until Anonymous actually puts something out there, I have my doubts. I'll believe this when I see it.

Ha ha, ancona! Newly bearded Blankfein doing Pelosi... Well, ha ha until tonight when a nightmare may strike!
 
pity they dont try and work a deal for Bradley Manning and Julian Assange

more specific and do-able

DOJ is never going to change
 
Some people say that anonymous is (partially) a front group of the FBI

I'm with DCRB, it's just a bunch of hot air so far. Let's wait and see whether they deliver something or not.
 
I'm with SA on this one. If they were really just a loosely organized group, egos would ultiumately dictate what was released and when. That means that we would see non-redacted stuff sooner than later. There is no reason to redact information other than to protect someone. No reason.
 
Ok yeah I guess it could be a front.

They used real 9/11 to start wars, increase defense spending, take away citizens rights. So using the language 'cyber 9/11' just before this event happened is suspicious and worrying like they are just creating a catalyst to give them an excuse to unleash all the cyber big brother and censorship stuff they've been building up and passing laws for
 
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-04/anonymous-claims-it-hacked-fed-releases-confidential-banker-information




Though the more I read about them the more sceptical I am, this at least may be something.
 
Last edited:
...that really doesn't make any sense at all, from my "seasoned computer guy" point of view. Why release edited docs. That strips them from any credibility whatsoever - whomever is smeared in these, might just simply claim - "these has been edited - it is not true at all, it wasn't me, it never was there, the content was manipulated, wahwahwah". Case closed.

...even if the content was NOT manipulated, I am highly suspicious as for the content of anything that is in digital form. It is just so easy to manufacture it, if you know how, that it gives no substance to any claims, based on it.

...unless there's some serious cryptographic shit done to SOURCE files, that would guarantee data integrity. Which I will not get into details of, but most certainly, most gov agencies are NOT using this kind of electronic records.
 

http://news.yahoo.com/fed-says-inte...no-critical-functions-010206341--finance.html
 
...OK, since hacking the Fed, is potentially, an obvious threat to the National Security, can "they" go after Anonymus members now, full-on, using anti-terrorist regulations/executive orders/powers/provisions? "CanIcanIcanI, Mr. President?" - said eager anti-"terrorist" tool.

Jeez, I wouldn't rather be in Anonymous' place! I hope (for their own sake), that they really do understand what they are trying to play with.
 
Let's think on this a little. Suppose anon is what they claim, and what we know. Mostly a bunch of 20's types, mostly script kiddies, some few really good crackers.
(assumption for the sake of argument here)

They know exactly diddly about intelligence business, but are finding out.
One of the first precepts is never tell the enemy about your sources and methods. It makes them quit working. Worse, in the case of anon, they could be declared "terrorists" and they do know that. Mom's basement ain't going to be safe if that happens. Though it's rarely done (expensive and takes time) they're not anonymous, they can be traced back through any number of proxies....it's just not seen to be worth doing it yet, as it's costly per each and there are a lot of anon.

Yet in their youth, they have to brag a little - try to recruit more talent etc. They have to walk a very fine line here - if the gov perceives them as a real threat, they lock things down (to the extent incompetent gov IT guys can manage) and bingo, there go all the easy pickings.

And they want a hole card, just like Assange. A big file out there no one can easily decrypt (you can bet NSA is burning the midnight oil just now on that one) that *might* really be the real thing. If it is, and NSA finds out it is - and it looks damning enough, expect the landscape to change all of a sudden - give it few weeks for NSA to try and break it, takes time if they did it right.

Why redact stuff? They could actually be telling the truth on why - if they have the real goods, some more or less sinecure mostly innocent people are going to get hurt too - as they said, collateral damage to people "just doing their job" which is always good to avoid. It's also good to protect your sources, and redaction can be used that way too...for example if you redact enough, the data you do show could have come from several different overlapping data stores - and you thereby deny your adversary the knowledge of which one the stuff came from.

Just sayin. No real good guess as to the actual truth here, but I got out the popcorn.
 
redacting personal information makes sense to me. IE.. no reason to give addresses and phone numbers, birth dates etc.

I also don't think the "concern" of getting caught is something these guys take lightly. I don't think they are likely using a hard line connection at their home to do this. Most likely, they are plugging into a network router in an office building over the weekend that they have access to or latch onto a wifi signal at a coffee place. If someone was serious enough, it really doesn't take much effort to make your actions on the net untraceable. You just have to have a real reason to want to do that.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…