8 ms·

I'm wondering if LulzSec is a false flag operation very well engineered.

by gasull 15y ago

blhack 15y ago
Not to be crass, but did you miss the whole "wikileaks" thing?
dmix 15y ago
The same questions and speculation come up in every LulzSec post.
- gasull 15y ago
  It might be that they are not a false flag operation but the Government is going to take advantage of the media attention to "civilize Internet".
  - maxwell 15y ago
    I hear this concern, but I'm not quite sure what the government can even do to "civilize". What would it mean exactly? Tighter regulation of domains, criminalization of encryption, tracking down and harshly sentencing crackers, forcing an "Internet ID", registering hardware? Any of these measures seems extraordinarily expensive. Maybe doable if the CIA drums up a War on Hacking, shifting attention away from the War on Terror, post-bin Laden.
    - arethuza 15y ago
      In Vernor Vinge's novel Rainbows End governments have done pretty much what you describe - running any kind of computing device that isn't part of their "secured" infrastructure is illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End Note: one of the many interesting things about the book is that it creates a scenario where this kind of control is very much a grey area.
    - baudehlo 15y ago
      > I'm not quite sure what the government can even do to "civilize" Nothing that would make anything better, and everything that would mean they have more powers.
      - maxwell 15y ago
        This is exactly the kind of qualitative fear mongering I was referring to.
omouse 15y ago
It isn't, there's no point in doing that, not to mention how illegal that would be. The US govt doesn't need any more scandals of this nature (wiretapping is enough I think). Also, whenever a government really wants to do something, they'll use any excuse that's available. For example; PATRIOT ACT, DMCA, Iraq Wars, etc. etc. For cyber-security, if none of this Anon or LulzSec stuff happened, it would be Russian or Chinese hackers that are infiltrating and by god we must protect Americans from those evil foreign hackers. Or they would rely on the terrorist excuse: the terrorists are losing in real life so they need to re-build support and attract younger people so why not hack some sites and gain new supporters that way? Beheadings and suicide bombings really fuck up the recruitment rate for terrorist organizations. See how easy it is to come up with an excuse that the internet needs to be locked down?
- d0ne 15y ago
  "It isn't, there's no point in doing that, not to mention how illegal that would be. The US govt doesn't need any more scandals of this nature (wiretapping is enough I think)." Wiretapping scandal became public circa late 2005 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co... Random collection of additional federal political 'scandals' since 2005: 1) This goes from 2001 - 2008 so skip to 2006 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#2001.E2.80.932008_George_W._Bush_Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scand... 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#2009.E2.80.93_Obama_Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scand... Additional 'scandals' with solid link to US Government: 1) http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/gps/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/gps/ 2) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110218/02143213163/more-hbgary-federal-fallout-government-wants-to-buy-software-to-fake-online-grassroots-social-media-campaigns.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110218/02143213163/more-h... 3) http://www.thenation.com/article/161057/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day http://www.thenation.com/article/161057/wikileaks-haiti-let-... 4) http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2010/101022_caught_exporting.html http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2010/101022_caught_exporting.htm... 5) http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1026810/us-government-censors-wikipedia http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1026810/us-governme... 6) http://www.elizabethwatson.org/featured/wikileaks-reveals-a-government-caught-up-in-the-mendacity-of-lies/ http://www.elizabethwatson.org/featured/wikileaks-reveals-a-... Just some random examples I pulled in 5 minutes. I don't believe the argument "...not to mention illegal that would be." or "The US govt doesn't need any more scandals..." has any bearing whatsoever on their decision making process at the level of authority needed to authorize something as a false flag operation for various reasons.
scarmig 15y ago
I've been hearing this a lot. Is there any evidence at all, though, that it's a false flag operation? So far as I can tell, the argument is implicitly "It's impossible for anyone in the world to be anywhere near as stupid as LulzSec appears to be, so it has to be a government plant." Unfortunately, that runs afoul of the maxim to never underestimate the depths of human stupidity... Or is this more said in jest, a way of just pointing out that the script kiddies behind LulzSec are really, really stupid and doing something that threatens to undermine a free and open Internet?
anonstranger 15y ago
OK, why's this almost a 100% sure a false flag op? Because they're using a giant botnet ("Lulz Cannon"), and not something like LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon, what Anonymous used). Who uses botnets? ScriptKiddies? Maybe if they've got access to rich Daddy's gold credit card to buy these botnet minutes from the web crime pros in russia; but for sure they can't build a powerful botnet like this. The "good guys" Anonymous apparently had some very skilled people; the chance that the "idiot ScriptKiddies" LulzSec has even more of them is very small. And on the other hand: What would a false flag op use? LOIC on their own PCs at home? Or in the agencies? LOL, for sure... No, they'd use a giant botnet; what else... And lastly: Always ask the question "Cui bono?" (Latin for "who's gonna profit from it?"). In the Anon case it was clear; they were activists trying to express their support for wikileaks and their anger on organizations that ceased support for wikileaks. But who's profiting from what LulzSec does? They themselves? Think again!

I'm wondering if LulzSec is a false flag operation very well engineered.

by gasull 15y ago

I'm wondering if LulzSec is a false flag operation very well engineered.

blhack 15y ago

Not to be crass, but did you miss the whole "wikileaks" thing?

dmix 15y ago

The same questions and speculation come up in every LulzSec post.

gasull 15y ago
It might be that they are not a false flag operation but the Government is going to take advantage of the media attention to "civilize Internet".
- maxwell 15y ago
  I hear this concern, but I'm not quite sure what the government can even do to "civilize". What would it mean exactly? Tighter regulation of domains, criminalization of encryption, tracking down and harshly sentencing crackers, forcing an "Internet ID", registering hardware? Any of these measures seems extraordinarily expensive. Maybe doable if the CIA drums up a War on Hacking, shifting attention away from the War on Terror, post-bin Laden.
  - arethuza 15y ago
    In Vernor Vinge's novel Rainbows End governments have done pretty much what you describe - running any kind of computing device that isn't part of their "secured" infrastructure is illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End Note: one of the many interesting things about the book is that it creates a scenario where this kind of control is very much a grey area.
  - baudehlo 15y ago
    > I'm not quite sure what the government can even do to "civilize" Nothing that would make anything better, and everything that would mean they have more powers.
    - maxwell 15y ago
      This is exactly the kind of qualitative fear mongering I was referring to.

omouse 15y ago

It isn't, there's no point in doing that, not to mention how illegal that would be. The US govt doesn't need any more scandals of this nature (wiretapping is enough I think). Also, whenever a government really wants to do something, they'll use any excuse that's available. For example; PATRIOT ACT, DMCA, Iraq Wars, etc. etc. For cyber-security, if none of this Anon or LulzSec stuff happened, it would be Russian or Chinese hackers that are infiltrating and by god we must protect Americans from those evil foreign hackers. Or they would rely on the terrorist excuse: the terrorists are losing in real life so they need to re-build support and attract younger people so why not hack some sites and gain new supporters that way? Beheadings and suicide bombings really fuck up the recruitment rate for terrorist organizations. See how easy it is to come up with an excuse that the internet needs to be locked down?

d0ne 15y ago
"It isn't, there's no point in doing that, not to mention how illegal that would be. The US govt doesn't need any more scandals of this nature (wiretapping is enough I think)." Wiretapping scandal became public circa late 2005 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co... Random collection of additional federal political 'scandals' since 2005: 1) This goes from 2001 - 2008 so skip to 2006 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#2001.E2.80.932008_George_W._Bush_Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scand... 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#2009.E2.80.93_Obama_Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scand... Additional 'scandals' with solid link to US Government: 1) http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/gps/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/gps/ 2) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110218/02143213163/more-hbgary-federal-fallout-government-wants-to-buy-software-to-fake-online-grassroots-social-media-campaigns.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110218/02143213163/more-h... 3) http://www.thenation.com/article/161057/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day http://www.thenation.com/article/161057/wikileaks-haiti-let-... 4) http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2010/101022_caught_exporting.html http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2010/101022_caught_exporting.htm... 5) http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1026810/us-government-censors-wikipedia http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1026810/us-governme... 6) http://www.elizabethwatson.org/featured/wikileaks-reveals-a-government-caught-up-in-the-mendacity-of-lies/ http://www.elizabethwatson.org/featured/wikileaks-reveals-a-... Just some random examples I pulled in 5 minutes. I don't believe the argument "...not to mention illegal that would be." or "The US govt doesn't need any more scandals..." has any bearing whatsoever on their decision making process at the level of authority needed to authorize something as a false flag operation for various reasons.

scarmig 15y ago

I've been hearing this a lot. Is there any evidence at all, though, that it's a false flag operation? So far as I can tell, the argument is implicitly "It's impossible for anyone in the world to be anywhere near as stupid as LulzSec appears to be, so it has to be a government plant." Unfortunately, that runs afoul of the maxim to never underestimate the depths of human stupidity... Or is this more said in jest, a way of just pointing out that the script kiddies behind LulzSec are really, really stupid and doing something that threatens to undermine a free and open Internet?

anonstranger 15y ago

OK, why's this almost a 100% sure a false flag op? Because they're using a giant botnet ("Lulz Cannon"), and not something like LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon, what Anonymous used). Who uses botnets? ScriptKiddies? Maybe if they've got access to rich Daddy's gold credit card to buy these botnet minutes from the web crime pros in russia; but for sure they can't build a powerful botnet like this. The "good guys" Anonymous apparently had some very skilled people; the chance that the "idiot ScriptKiddies" LulzSec has even more of them is very small. And on the other hand: What would a false flag op use? LOIC on their own PCs at home? Or in the agencies? LOL, for sure... No, they'd use a giant botnet; what else... And lastly: Always ask the question "Cui bono?" (Latin for "who's gonna profit from it?"). In the Anon case it was clear; they were activists trying to express their support for wikileaks and their anger on organizations that ceased support for wikileaks. But who's profiting from what LulzSec does? They themselves? Think again!