New Arrest Over Anonymous' Pro-WikiLeaks Attacks

[Hissyspit]

Source: Telegraph UK

New arrest over Anonymous' pro-WikiLeaks attacks

Police have made a sixth arrest in their investigation of Anonymous, the online activist collective that launched a series of cyber attacks on major firms it saw as anti-WikiLeaks.

By Christopher Williams, Technology Correspondent 7:00AM BST 15 Apr 2011

The new suspect, a 22-year-old man from Cleveland, was questioned by specialist computer crime detectives at a local police station on Wednesday last week. He was bailed until 26 May pending further enquiries.

The five original suspects - three teenage boys and two men - have also all been bailed again in the last 48 hours, to reappear at police stations in June.

They were arrested at addresses in the West Midlands, Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire, Surrey and London in coordinated dawn operations on 27 January.

They are suspected of involvement in cyber attacks on the websites of Amazon, Bank of America, Mastercard, PayPal and Visa in December. Deliberately causing such disruption is an offence under the Computer Misuse Act and carries a sentence of up to 10 years' imprisonment.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8451714/New-arrest-over-Anonymous-pro-WikiLeaks-attacks.html

[pacalo]

1. Wow. It may be wrong but I'm disappointed. Their mischief was for the common "good"

-- not to harm innocent people or upstanding organizations/businesses.

[Alamuti Lotus]

3. Yes, but "innocent people" and "upstanding organizations/businesses" do NOT run the government

So, you have this.

[snot]

2. K&R'd

[canetoad]

4. You'd think a member of Anonymous

....would not leave a cyber trail :shrug:

[Hissyspit]

5. Many, if not most, don't.

But since Anonymous can be and is everyone, that's going to include some who aren't as exacting or experienced as others.

[pacalo]

12. Disgruntled former associates provided their identities.

[Norrin Radd]

6. Oh, no! A website was disrupted!

Stupid law. And 10 years?!?

[Alamuti Lotus]

9. Some damphool once remarked that "the business of America is Business"

disrupt the health of that, and it's perhaps worse on the scale than disrupting the health of an actual human or other lower life form.

[joshcryer]

7. Do NOT run those DDoSing applications that Anonymous hands out.

They want you as their pawn, you have no protection using such applications.

[elias49]

11. Well there ARE protections. But kids will be kids.

I don't know that Anon should shoulder all the blame.
A good deal of the blame rests with TPB.
Shane on 'law enforcement'.
I doubt that those misguided teens will see 10 years.

[JJW]

8. I'm attacked every day

by Google and other corporate ads, that slow down my surfing. It seems trying to sell me useless stuff that I don't want is legal. So next time Anonymous needs to attack with ads.

[PATRICK]

10. I was wondering

how long it would take. The group did not seem careful enough about its real life security. The fact it enlisted kids shows that the adult hackers were not of sufficient paranoid dimensions- or even the egoistical heights- to be real first rate geniuses. To beat the system you have to be better than the bottomless pocket organizations and their hires OR involve countless hackers in a real democratic and more open mob. If they had put out a methodology swiftly online and a "how-to" the entire world would have been shaken. Apparently no one wanted to create the kind of universal chaos this would have caused whether anything happened immediately or not.

Yet the RW has enabled and is permitted to engage in criminal acts of any type which is why they dar4e to be sloppy. The vigilantism of Anonymous has been framed as cyber attack without provoking the "law" to check out the real crooks.

Albeit Murdoch is being taken to task for his treasonous tech attacks on older technology, but before the clamps go on internet freedom per se(to oppress ALL the little people with the pretext of Anonymous being the only threat) rather than huge criminals the law has to start working at the top or it will not work at all- as law in any sense other than tyranny.

[Zorra]

13. I think Anonymous is fighting fascism. Like a new Resistance.

It appears to me that the only organizations that they are attacking are organizations that have attempted to limit our liberties.

Julian Assange and Wikileaks deserve need to be defended somehow.

As does Bradley Manning:

Given his treatment while in confinement, as well as the list of new charges against him, Bradley Manning has gained another set of champions to his dilemma. Anonymous has promised to avenge Manning, and wage a media war with the U.S. military.
snip--
"Manning is an absolute hero. If this means me going to fucking prison, then that's fine, said Barrett Brown earlier today in an interview."

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201109/6905/Anonymous-plans-defense-for-Bradley-Manning-promises-a-media-war

Taking the law into the hands of the people sometimes becomes necessary when fascists, and their money, controls the law and prosecutes the innocent. Once that happens, no one is safe from fascist authoritarianism.

I am a democrat, and I detest fascism. I hate being forced to submit to the rule of corporations and wealthy private interests.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."

*FDR, "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-truat laws."