4 ms·
Anonymous Threatens Massive WikiLeaks-Style Exposure
- droithomme 14y agoArticle contains blatantly false statements that Swartz "released" JSTOR documents. He did not. Claims that he did are pervading the media and all are false. TechCrunch and other sites making such false claims can not be considered reputable news sources because of their propensity to intentionally misrepresent such matters.
- krickle 14y agoTechcrunch cannot be considered a reputable news source for far more reasons than that.
- wildranter 14y agoTC is almost always the sleaziest source of news unless they're reporting on "relevant" news.
- subsystem 14y agoHacked site from google cache, some of the files can still be downloaded: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sV8dPXftnTcJ:www.ussc.gov/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sV8dPXf...
- dmix 14y ago> Any media outlets wishing to be eligible for this program must include within their reporting a means of secure communications How would a journalist securely communicate with anonymous? Some type of TOR network chat? How would they initiate the conversation?
- betterunix 14y agoEncrypted messages sent via Tor is reasonable. Also reasonable is posting encrypted messages to alt.anonymous.messages via some anonymity system (like remailers, or Tor again). Unfortunately, many journalists still think that we are living in the 1970s, and don't understand what secure communication means in this day and age.
- meepmorp 14y agoWell, I can't think of anything which will convince people to moderate their opinions about computer "hackers" better than website defacements and threats.
- sachingulaya 14y agoAgreed. They're not needed here. We don't need a legitimate grass roots movement dragged through the mud by having Anonymous involved. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that the Anonymous brand is so tainted and awful that subversive forces might be using it to undermine legitimate protest by associating it with a hostile, criminal group.
- youngerdryas 14y agoAnonymous means well, maybe, but they drag Aaron's legitimate causes so far down into their muck. We have a chance to have some good come from this, but not with wankers in it for the lulz.
- negamax 14y agoNames of the files prefix posted Scalia - Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of Supreme Court Kennedy - Anthony McLeod Kennedy, Associate Justice of Supreme Court Thomas - Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of Supreme Court Ginsburg - Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of Supreme Court Breyer - Stephen Gerald Breyer, Associate Justice of Supreme Court Roberts - John Glover Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Alito - Samuel Anthony Alito, Associate Justice of Supreme Court Sotomayor - Sonia Maria Sotomayor, Associate Justice of Supreme Court Kagan - Elena Kagan, Associate Justice of Supreme Court
- kbar13 14y ago>anonymous why? releasing confidential government information is probably going to be bad for everyone involved, and does it really serve a real purpose?
- malandrew 14y agoForced transparency. It becomes much more difficult to collude if you can't trust your communications to keep your corruptions a secret long enough to establish an entire career upon those corruptions and keeping them a secret. I imagine corruption plays out across a social network of people in power. If it becomes more difficult to collude because of the risk of being found out, you've created a legitimate moral hazard governing the behavior of those doing the governing.
- mayneack 14y ago"Reform or we'll release this incriminating stuff." Clearly, the better way to get them to reform is to release the incriminating material and have a scandal about it. If it's really bad enough to be worth this headline, it'll do a lot more good when it's not a threat. Of course, that means it's probably irrelevant and/or useless.
- malandrew 14y agoFrom the video, the thing I found oddest is that they say they will not unlock the contents of the file made available to download unless their demands are met. I found this odd because their demands to reform the DoJ is unlikely to occur except via an act of Congress, something I see as unlikely since it means getting a couple of hundred people on both sides of the aisle to agree to do this. I would imagine that it'd be far more effective to release two files, one with information/dirt on as many members of the house of representatives and the senate and put that in one file. Then put all the dirt on the DoJ in another file. With files on Congress, they could force Congress' hand in investigating the DoJ and reforming it.