

Anonymous posts over 4000 U.S. bank executive credentials - nirvana
http://www.zdnet.com/anonymous-posts-over-4000-u-s-bank-executive-credentials-7000010740/

======
tlrobinson
I don't get it, they're demanding computer crime law reform by doing something
that obviously is and should be illegal?

EDIT: Now it's unclear to me whether Anonymous placed the spreadsheet on the
.gov server, or they simply found it and exposed it. If it's the latter then
it makes more sense, but I suspect it's the former.

~~~
CountHackulus
Should it be illegal? They shared a public link to a spreadsheet exposed on a
.gov address. If anything, it's the owner of that .gov address that needs to
get in trouble for placing sensitive documents in a publicly accessible
location.

~~~
rayiner
You think the government would have put the document under the URL "oops-we-
did-it-again.html?"

C'mon, at least RTFA before falling over yourself to support the anti-
government position.

------
krrrh
I was just discussing this with a lawyer friend who is concerned that it is
only a matter of time before anonymous gets classified as a domestic terrorist
group. The PATRIOT act defines domestic terrorism as:

> activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a
> violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear
> to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to
> influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii)
> to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or
> kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
> the U.S.

Condition C is met, condition B(ii) is pretty much declared. How much of a
stretch would it be for a federal prosecutor to argue that condition A is
satisfied because exposing personal information of powerful people is
dangerous to their lives?

~~~
drivingmenuts
I'd say they've got B.i and B.ii down pretty thoroughly and C wouldn't be
difficult since the end result of the act occurred in the US.

A is the problem. If Congress expands that to economic crimes, then it's
instant terrorist.

~~~
geon
> A is the problem. If Congress expands that to economic crimes, then it's
> instant terrorist.

On the other hand, so is lobbying.

~~~
tomjen3
Not really, assuming that it doesn't (otherwise) break the law.

------
nextparadigms
The moment I saw this news I thought _false flag_!

And I may have been right:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/17v9zy/anonymous...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/17v9zy/anonymous_posts_over_4000_us_bank_executive/c899cdo)

The feds have been investigating the bankers, and I'm sure they had access to
all that information. The feds are having their own terrorist plots (that then
they "uncover" themselves). Is it really that far fetched for this to have
happened, too?

~~~
GHFigs
It's much more likely that you're witnessing the confluence of confirmation
bias and the inherent ambiguity created by many different sets of people
operating under the same name. We have, in fact, been through this before with
"Anonymous", because anybody can claim to be "Anonymous". (The post on reddit
is hilariously out of touch with this fundamental reality.)

You, personally, have been making claims of false flag attacks for years with
a similar lack of evidence. (e.g.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2659640>) You might just be seeing what
you want to see, instead of drawing the most accurate conclusions you can make
based on the available evidence.

------
deleted_account
/facepalm

Anonymous is really embarrassing themselves. Trying to connect the dots from
doxxing "management at community banks" back to Aaron Swartz is so cringe
worthy I can only shrug and assume they're doing it for the lulz.

row row fight the powah, I guess.

~~~
sageikosa
I'll take the secret police over secret vigilantes, if for no other reason
that the policy of maintaining a secret police force can be debated as a
matter of public policy, whereas vigilantes answer to no one.

Edit: though I'd rather have neither.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
Secret police are used to stifle dissent; they aren't subject to it. The whole
point of a "secret police force" is that they are an incredibly powerful tool
not subject to public oversight, public debate, or even public approval.

~~~
criley
Right? If the public knew about it and debated it, it's not a "secret".

~~~
rmah
The "secret" part of "secret police" refers to the hidden identity of the
members of the secret police, not that the mere existence of the secret police
is a secret.

------
ihsw
Another false-flag operation by the US Government, same as the ussc.gov
fiasco. Escalating seems to be very effective at discrediting Anonymous based
on the comments here and on reddit.

~~~
youngerdryas
I think you give the US government too much credit.

~~~
ihsw
I think you don't give it enough credit. Israel has a history of
disinformation and misinformation campaigns and I think the Obama
administration will take a page from their book.

This strategy may be at the forefront of Obama's domestic policy strategy for
this term -- just look at how they're discrediting the pro-Republican anti-
Democrat media and they're very successful so far.

------
trg2
Chrome gives a malware warning when you visit this site - watch out!

~~~
bwhite
It is apparently due to sites embedding Netseer ads:
<https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=netseer>

~~~
wglb
I started getting warnings from Crome on weeatherunderground today.

------
sigzero
Another story about the Anon criminals.

~~~
hack_edu
Another thread of broken-record HN comments!

~~~
youngerdryas
Well who is stupid enough to upvote these stories. Apparently there are a lot
of confused people on this site.

~~~
hack_edu
I upvote them, because I find the entire Anonymous drama to be incredibly
fascinating and _highly_ topical to the HN demographic. What I do tire of is
the 'damn buncha hoodlums' comment cacophony that offers no contribution to
the discussion.

~~~
youngerdryas
Well the drama maybe fascinating but it is not productive or helpful to any
cause other than giving hackers a bad name, a fact I think many miss.

~~~
hack_edu
I don't know about that. These acts highlight that the inarguably-real
criminals can humiliate the government and not be stopped while public
information activists get thrown away. One can say that they're Bad and/or
criminals, and might be right, but to assume that the actions of Anonymous are
in a vacuum apart from Aaron or Manning is short-sighted. Are their actions
and reckless? Probably. So? The means-ends relationship is complicated, but
Anonymous acts within their virtues and their intents are from the right
place. And come on, this shit's hilarious!

And, this whole 'giving hackers a bad name' thing. Give me a break. Yes,
'hacker' is a dirty word to some. Most likely those that don't understand, nor
matter to the greater interests of either types of who self-identify with the
word. It will continue to be, regardless of however many
Facebook/Google/Instragram/whatevers there are.

------
youngerdryas
Anonymous is worse than useless.

