Skip to main content

A Gawker article names two (former) members of Anonymous who , according to Gawker, have become disenfranchised with the group and are providing law enforcement with chat logs planning crimes as well as the identity of some members.  The logs give a look at the group from the inside and refute some of the group’s claims about a lack of leadership.

In the article Gawker claims the logs show “a collective of ecstatic and arrogant activists driven to a frenzy by a sense of their own power—they congratulated one another when Hosni Mubarak resigned, as though Anonymous was responsible—and contain bald admissions of criminal behavior that could serve as powerful evidence in criminal proceedings if the internet handles are ever linked to actual people,” and that they “seem to prove that members of Anonymous were involved in hacking into Gawker's servers last December.”

The two former members make some claims as well, specifically that after handing the information to the FBI and DOD only to be told “as an agent on that case, I'm not going to discuss ongoing investigative matters."  The members also claim that Anonymous “are becoming arrogant sociopaths,” “They're recruiting children. I am a pretty far left person—I believe in privacy and free expression, but Anonymous is a vigilante group now. A mob without conscience. And I worry they will radicalize even more. In short, I believe they're on their way to becoming a genuine threat.”  Barrett Brown, an Anonymous spokesman seems to agree stating "I can also confirm that we have become vindicative megalomaniacs."

It’s a good read and includes some of the logs.  However it’s worth keeping in mind that any information “leaked” regarding hackers or trolls should be taken with a plate full of salt, especially when regarding Anonymous as anybody can make wild claims.  Futhermore Gawker has had problems with both Anonymous and 4chan, which is closely linked to the group in the past, so they have a personal stake in this.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  I wonder if Kossack Barrett Brown (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enhydra lutris, kyril

      is around to confirm the last part of this quote.

      Barrett Brown, who is generally regarded by Anonymous members as a spokesman for the group, said he has known about the "security breach" for some time: "We're aware of the security breach as other logs from 'HQ' have been posted before (and I should note that HQ is not really HQ anyway — you will note that the actual coordination of performed hacks will not appear in those logs). I can tell you that those who were responsible for pulling off HBGary ... no longer use that room due not only to this security breach, but other factors as well." When we repeated Metric and A5h3r4's claims that Anonymous had become megalomaniacal and vindictive, Brown replied: "I can also confirm that we have become vindicative megalomaniacs."
      •  I'd guess that if he said it, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, kyril

        it was with tongue firmly planted in cheek, a mocking reference to the anonymous is everyone riff.

        "When the powerless are shut out of the media, we will make the media irrelevant" ~Anonymous~

        by Lisa Lockwood on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 09:05:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agree. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lisa Lockwood, kyril

          That's the only interpretation I could come up with based on his previous writings here. This is also in close temporal proximity to the rally he had scheduled in New York this month, isn't it?

          Retaliation? I can't keep up with every twist and turn, but I'm not stupid either. Sounds like a typical "pattern of practice" smear by those with their precious pocketbooks on the line.


  •  it's getting silly now (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Futuristic Dreamer, Larsstephens

     The initial burst of boys will be boys enthusiasm has passed and now the great winnowing will begin. Anyone who was close to that has probably been characterized, will be receiving a visit, and perhaps more.

    •  Yo dude:-) But for one thing... (6+ / 0-)

      Going after Anonymous is like trying to stop a swarm of bees or a flock of birds.  Sure, you can spray insecticide hither and yon, or fire off shotgun blasts as the case may be, and you'll knock down a few or even an impressive number of individuals.  

      But the swarm or the flock as a collective phenomenon will continue to exist and fly and grow over time.  And those who seek to eradicate it entirely are in the end doomed to fail.  

      That's the part about "the birds and the bees" that our parents never told us.  

  •  "Disenchanted" Maybe? (10+ / 0-)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 05:02:24 PM PDT

  •  Still missing the point. (11+ / 0-)

    The current make up of the group doesn't really matter.  People are playing a game of wack-a-mole in going after Anonymous because Anonymous is not a fixed, defined group.  It is an idea, a product of the hive, a new form of power.  As an idea, it's immortal.  

    They can call it Anonymous.  They can call it Magnanimous.  They can call it whatever.  Because everybody is in charge and nobody is in charge.  Because new permutations of the idea can be born at any moment.  Because internet memes never really die.  They can evolve or devolve, but erasure is impossible.

    The idea is out there.  Trying to get rid of it is like trying to get rid of the equations that allow governments to build nuclear weapons.  Once that box is opened you can never get them back in.

    However one feels about Anonymous, if you don't recognize the reality of what it is, you only prove your own obsolescence.

    Don't tell me what you do. Tell me whose interests you serve and I'll tell you what you do.

    by GiveNoQuarter on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 05:21:19 PM PDT

  •  DDoS and hacking servers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Can be considered a form of civil disobediance depending on motive but it is a felony so anyone engaging in this activity ought to ready to go to jail - and in the case of DDoS, willing to face criminal consipray charges.

    And rather foolish considering the anonymity of the internet.

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 05:24:06 PM PDT

    •  the digital equivalent of a sit-in or a picket. (8+ / 0-)

      Sit-ins and pickets are DOS attacks: they block access, occupy space, prevent anything getting in or out, and disrupt the hell out of business-as-usual.  There was a time when they were treated as a form of terrorism and dealt with accordingly: from the Pinkerton guards firing machine guns at union picketers in the early 20th century, to Southern police using fire hoses on Civil Rights Movement protesters in the 1960s.

      Over time the law evolved to where sit-ins and pickets became at most minor trespassing.  

      It would be interesting if, over time, techniques evolved to make digital sit-ins and digital pickets come to more closely resemble their "meat-space" counterparts in a manner that forces the law to evolve.

      However I wouldn't put it past some zealot corporation or corrupt prosecutor to attempt to use the cybercrime statutes against physical picketers, charging them with a DOS attack on the physical site they attempted to block.

      One way or another this is going to be an evolving area of law.  And at root, it's a power struggle: who wins?

      •  the more likely legal convergence IMO (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, koNko, Lisa Lockwood

        is the recriminalization of meatspace protest.

        •  yes, there is that. (4+ / 0-)

          Per my next to last paragraph:

          "However I wouldn't put it past some zealot corporation or corrupt prosecutor to attempt to use the cybercrime statutes against physical picketers, charging them with a DOS attack on the physical site they attempted to block."

          Call it a DOS attack on a physical site, making it look worse because it's physical and that means intimidation which is assault, and conspiracy to commit assault is a felony...

          .... believe me, the dystopian science fiction practically writes itself these days.  

      •  Depends on motive (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lisa Lockwood

        Crowds can be a protest, a mob or a vigilante.

        Hang out at 2chan for long and you get the picture.

        So just as you should use your brain before joining a sit in, whatever, if you venture into that spae you better be prepared to deal with the consequenes, which in the case of DDoS could be a lot more than a night in Jail with the ACLU on the other side.

        Given the anonymity of the web, I'd say you even take bigger risks because you can't look into people's eyes and the more coded and slangly the chat is, the more superficial and easier to get nabbed.

        I can think of at least 2 people Bradley Manning should not have trusted as much as he did.

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 08:45:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  In the thread of the link some call this fake (9+ / 0-)

    and frankly, given the nature of the beast (disaffected hackers), I would think it could be easy to fake something like this.

    How does Gawker know they won't incur some retaliation with this revelation?  Or maybe that's what the point, if there's a LE trap set up?

    Anon never fails to be interesting, even at their most outrageous worst.  

    Which side are you on?

    by wiseacre on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 05:32:36 PM PDT

  •  I'll let this comment (12+ / 0-)

    that follows the gawker article speak for me:

    Just like the purported Manning / Lamo chats logs, the authenticity of these alleged IRC logs has not been independently verified but it made news anyway and the damage has been done.

    If you were running an operation to discredit, disgrace, disrupt and distress Anonymous, this is exactly what it would look like. ( Hubris gives it all away when he says he specializes in psychological operations.)

    This action successfully distracts and detracts from all the good that has been done under the Anonymous banner - helping the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya get around government censorship, releasing indicators B of A fraud, disclosing plans to discredit Wikileaks supporters and Chamber of Commerce critics, etc., etc. Sixty to seventy percent of our national security budgets are paid to private contractors. (source: Tim Shorrock's excellent, well documented book "Spies For Hire").

    Some of these contractors are corrupt and their actions seriously threaten our basic rights, freedom and democracy.

    Anonymous is the only "group" that has fought back and tried to expose this corruption and government complicity with it.

    This sort of sordid counter attack is exactly what we should expect from covert contractors like HBGary who profit from trying to limit criticism of their corporate and government clients.

    rAmen ;-)

    "When the powerless are shut out of the media, we will make the media irrelevant" ~Anonymous~

    by Lisa Lockwood on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 05:49:09 PM PDT

  •  Turn over those chat logs (5+ / 0-)

    because people on irc are incapable of lying.

  •  Most of the Gawker comments in the link (6+ / 0-)

    seem to think this is BS and I'm inclined to agree. If they are as secretive as EVERYONE claims, why would they be talking about illegal activity like it's nothing? Even to each other? I don't think they would. Besides, the conversations that they posted seem too childish imo. Too staged, even for teenagers. I'm skeptical to say the least. In fact, I think Gawker has been had with a false flag op and fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

    "Official DeBagger"

    by draa on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 06:04:01 PM PDT

    •  If I were a betting person, (7+ / 0-)

      I'd put money on 'lulz' . The serious turf war seems to be being waged among a few teabagger type 'patriot' hackers and some of the 'moralfags' in anon, in living color, on twitter. Much chest thumping, 'tango down' and #fail flying back and forth.

      "When the powerless are shut out of the media, we will make the media irrelevant" ~Anonymous~

      by Lisa Lockwood on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 06:17:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The names are meaningless to me, (7+ / 0-)

      but back in my newspaper night-editor days, I would have never published the lead paragraph as written:

      John Cook and Adrian Chen — Inside Anonymous' Secret War Room Dissident members of the internet hacktivist group Anonymous, tired of what they call the mob's "unpatriotic" ways, have provided law enforcement with chat logs of the group's leadership planning crimes, as well as what they say are key members' identities. They also gave them to us.

      My gut says you're right about the false flag, and I suspect that some may have been paid handsomely for their efforts.

  •  lulz (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lisa Lockwood, kyril, susakinovember

    Oh god, this again?
    Honestly, this is both old news and non news. Some idiots want to stir up some business for some fledgling security outfit or whatever the hell they're selling so they say they've "got logs of top sekret anon hq chats!"


    Firstly, if feds want logs..they get them from the server or some other source, not from some idiots.
    Secondly, chat logs...really?
    Thirdly, a secret hq chat room.........think about that for a moment. On an irc server...they rely on secret command and control remaining secret by having....a secret chat room, not just ANY secret chat room, but one called "HQ".

    Honest, too, gawd people...This is why I don't read gawker.

    Also, of COURSE there are minors in anon. Serioiusly, Q herself is supposedly a 16 year old girl.

    The best I can say about this is it's a troll by the jester and his ilk, the worst I can say is it's a troll by some idiots who want to make a buck.


  •  Skeptical (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The fact that they turned this over to the authorities and released it publicly would seem to indicate three things: first, that these two are genuinely disenchanted with Anonymous and want to stop it for sincere reasons; second, they got fed up with the group for some reason or another (internal power struggle or the like) and now, having an axe to grind, are using any chance they have to destroy or discredit it; or third, that this is a false flag op as others have suggested.  I'd be much more inclined to choose options two or three as likely.

    Anonymous seems increasingly to be a force of nature.  I'm not entirely sure I trust them 100%, but I admire a lot of what they have done.  If it takes a bunch of high school and college kids to change the world, then let 'em have at it.  They can hardly do worse, I think, than the "grown-ups" have done so far.

    •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)
      Anonymous seems increasingly to be a force of nature.  I'm not entirely sure I trust them 100%, but I admire a lot of what they have done.  If it takes a bunch of high school and college kids to change the world, then let 'em have at it.  They can hardly do worse, I think, than the "grown-ups" have done so far.  

      Renewable energy brings national security.      -6.25, -6.05

      by Calamity Jean on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 07:46:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site