
Anonymous Austria leaks 2.8 GB Scientology Emails  - bmaeser
http://pastebin.com/ByA0DV5R
======
dfc
Its unfortunate that they were not distributed via bittorrent and/or a tor
hidden service. The files are large enough that downloading them with the
"free download" option is a terribly long wait. I do not understand how this
has so many upvotes after being up for such a short time. Have that many
people actually downloaded the files already?

Does anyone have any guesses about the string at the end of the announcement?
Is that something Anonymous normally does?

    
    
      6693b5c82009cdf9a2abf2fc80d0aeab25aa8a3a5d5d33ec24dd1c5a3038fee0b10a8460d4b3cf922ce77e2abda13ca6d3fd0c18081be3c7626587c767fb7d7b

~~~
deno
It’s not straightforward to distribute via Bittorrent anonymously.

~~~
dfc
What hurdles/risks are present in bittorrent that are not incurred when
uploading to a free file hosting service? I do not think bittorrent and/or
free file services provide any serious level of anonymity against a group with
pockets as deep as the CoS. Let's not forget these are the people that brought
down anon.penet.fi...

N.B.: I also updated my post to include using a tor hidden service. I thought
I had included it originally.

From the responses I have read it seems that I should have been more clear
that I was also taking censorship resistance into consideration.

~~~
deno
Just use Tor bundle and that’s it. The only way you can shoot yourself in foot
is if you use flash uploader and that bypasses Tor (fortunately plugins are
disabled in Tor bundle AFAIK).

Seeding via Tor? You need to configure Torrent client to use Tor, make sure it
doesn’t leak anything (DNS lookups, publishing to DHT or tracker, some stuff
on the protocol level was a problem as well). There’s nothing that comes
working out of the box. Of course it’s not rocket science, it’s just a bit
more work.

Hosting just via hidden service is actually worse than uploading to random
locations on clearnet:

1) Still no way to do load balancing with hidden services

2) It’s usually slower anyway

3) If your server gets compromised you’re toasted, unless you use hacked
servers, or buy your servers with Bitcoins or stolen CCs.

The best network for publishing that kind of leaks would be Freenet or I2P +
Tahoe. But those are not nearly as popular (and secure) as Tor.

~~~
dfc
I was assuming someone from anonymous could handle figuring out how to setup
tor to seed.

More importantly hosting via hidden service is not worse than uploading to
depositfiles. Hidden services protects both the uploader's and the
downloader's anonymity and it is much, much, much more resistant to
censorship. I am not sure what "hosting gets breached" has to do with the
discussion.

~~~
deno
I guess it’s not a major issue when just hosting some static content, but
still if someone gets access to your server sitting behind Tor, you better
make sure you don’t have any activity that can tie you to that server.

This is how some people running CP sites via Tor were caught.

~~~
dfc
In order to get access to your server they need to circumvent the anonymity
that tor provides. Hopefully if you go through the trouble to publish via
hidden descriptors you know not to include your name/SSN/gps/cell-number in
your apache headers;)

This is completely tangential, but can you point me to the Tor investigations?
The interaction of tor/law-enforcement is something I am extremely interested
in.

~~~
deno
> In order to get access to your server they need to circumvent the anonymity
> that tor provides.

Not necessarily, the CP sites were hacked using PHP vulnerabilities or
something similar, not to mention your hosting provider could just get
interested in your network activity for whatever reason.

> This is completely tangential, but can you point me to the Tor
> investigations?

Nothing I have bookmarked, sorry.

~~~
dfc
Thanks for checking. Sadly the bookmarks always go missing...

------
MultiRRomero
Am I the only one who doesn't find this all that positive? I already think
scientology is bad/evil/dangerous, and I think that illegally getting access
to their secrets might make the opposition (us) look worse in the public eye.
Everybody has dirty secrets, both sides, and it's a bit low to go after the
other side's private emails. It'd be much easier to fight/debate against their
public image, which is easy enough, without having to resort to intrusive
attacks. We have the warrant system in the states for a reason, and if this
were to happen in court the evidence would just get tossed right out.

Idk, am I alone here? Am I wrong? I'm open to contrary opinions.

~~~
evertonfuller
Right with you. This is illegal, plain and simple. Acts like this should not
be celebrated. No matter if it's against the 'bad' guys.

~~~
rondon1
Gay Marriage is also illegal in many places, but that doesn't make it wrong.

~~~
tptacek
Oh. I see. We have unjust laws, therefore, everyone should be entitled to use
coercion to enforce their personal morals and ethics.

Good plan. What could possibly go wrong with it? After all, everyone capable
of coercing _us_ of anything must share our morals and ethics.

~~~
pyre
I think the post you were responding to was just nit-picking the logic that
illegal == immoral (or wrong). I don't see anything in that post that states
what you are railing against here.

------
raphman
Some of the emails can apparently be read at [1], [2] - via [3]

[1] <http://pic.pwny.biz/x/ed_at_scientology.co.at/>

[2] <http://pic.pwny.biz/x/buchladen_at_scientology.co.at/>

[3] <http://blog.esowatch.com/?p=8247>

(in German, of course)

~~~
fjh
> (in German, of course)

That's what I would have assumed, but many of them are actually written in
(mostly hilariously bad) English for some reason. They also seem to be using
quite a lot of jargon, which seems to consist entirely of English words or
phrases.

~~~
dfc
> They also seem to be using quite a lot of jargon

First time reading CoS material? Anything in particular? LRH was an american
so it is not surprising that the domain specific jargon is english...

~~~
nnnnni
"domain specific jargon"

ಠ_ಠ

~~~
deno
Loaded language is a very powerful cult tactic.

E.g. Jehovah’s witnesses call their religion “the Truth” in their everyday
conversations. Any kind of critical thought is equivalent then to “rejecting
the Truth,” which automatically substitutes critical thinking with an
emotional response.

<http://www.garloff.de/kurt/sekten/mind1.html>

~~~
saraid216
He meant that "domain specific jargon" is a redundant term. Jargon, by
definition, is domain specific.

------
zekenie
anyone found anything interesting in the emails? it just says they're evil,
and the download's slow.

~~~
bmaeser
that is a lot of data. i think journalists will sum it up for you, if there is
something interesting.

~~~
dfc
That is a strange philosophy/view-point for HN...

~~~
javajosh
Au contraire. Journalists are highly motivated to plough through the data for
the scoop. ("Data scoop" is certainly an interesting development in our 21st
century, btw!) I'm happy to let a highly motivated person do the ploughing,
and give me the highlights, especially about a subject as marginally
interesting as Scientology.

~~~
dfc
Au contraire? Respectfully, in my opinion sitting back and hoping someone else
has the motivation to be inquisitive/curious is counter to the spirit of HN.

Furthermore as others have pointed out (as well as myself in another thread)
CoS has deep pockets and I imagine that serves as a decent motivation for big
media to not publish the incident.

~~~
javajosh
I think the underlying message here is that Scientology is a lot more
interesting to you than it is to me! Honestly, I care about global warming a
lot more and yet I didn't take much time to sift through the "Climategate"
emails in detail[1]. I also care about Linux security, and yet I've not done
an audit of the kernel I'm currently running. I also care about the federal
tax code, and have certainly not taken the time to analyze it for
inconsistencies and unfairness.

Would you say that these decisions are "counter to the spirit of HN"?

Of course, Paul Graham started HN mainly to have intelligent, on topic
discussions about technology and startup issues. And in that sense, apart from
my aside about "data scoops", I _am_ probably posting contrary to the spirit
of HN, since the bulk of this message and the one before it are just simple
opinion expression, rather than anything more susbtantive. Heck, now that I
think about it I'm tempted to delete them both!

[1][http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy)
And for the record, those emails are pretty disgusting and I'm surprised and
disappointed at the reaction.

~~~
jmyc
From your link, "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published
reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct" (concerning
the "climategate" e-mails).

By hearing the cherry-picked quotes from those e-mails, you could get the
impression that they're full of fraud, but now that the dust has settled and
the investigations have been made, do you really think they're disgusting?

I think this example is counter to your point. The initial media reaction gave
the complete wrong impression, and the later findings that the story is
nonsense went completely unreported.

~~~
javajosh
_> this example is counter to your point_

Actually, you're right! I read (some of) the original 'climategate' emails,
and my opinion was quite contrary to virtually every independent committee.
Those scientists were _dirty_. And clearly so.

I guess the real upshot is that "the spirit of HN" is to check original
sources for stuff you _really_ care about. It's important to do so, just in
case the "experts" get it wrong.

If Scientology is important to you, then check those emails!

------
vertis
The original download links are slow. For a torrent of the files see
<http://www.demonoid.ph/files/details/2949566>

------
jheriko
I find it beautifully ironic - the statement "2.They are evil. They are
dangerous. Everyone must know." from people who invaded privacy under the
misguided belief they are fighting the good fight...

Two wrongs don't make a right. Grow the f*ck up - stand up instead of skulking
in the shadows.

------
munchor
[http://pic.pwny.biz.nyud.net/x/buchladen_at_scientology.co.a...](http://pic.pwny.biz.nyud.net/x/buchladen_at_scientology.co.at/00273.txt)

This is one strange email...

~~~
mhd
Strange? Someone's got a couple hundred of Euros in credit at the CoS
bookstore, but should already own his full set of encyclopedias, considering
that he's a Level 60 Warlock. So they're asking if he can donate that for some
"charity" event about their popular "psychiatry is eeeevil" line of thought.

------
mutant
Ridiculous distrobution method. Piratebay upload could have gotten this out in
a few hours.

------
quadrant6
This should be brought to public attention but the public don't want to have
to download 2.8 gb of data and filter through it. Someone has to do that first
and make it easily digestible, highlighting the worst or most 'dangerous'
emails.

~~~
rplnt
Journalists should do that. But I have the feeling they are happy with youtube
videos nowadays.

------
yuvadam
Any other mirrors online?

------
pud
It troubles me a tiny bit to see comments on HN like (paraphrased) "Members of
[group that has different religious beliefs than me] are evil."

I am not defending religion or Scientology.

~~~
lmkg
Objections to Scientology are not (for the most part) based on their religious
beliefs, but their practices and behaviors. They have a history of being
aggressively litigious, similar to patent trolls[1], and have used frivolous
lawsuits to harass critics into giving up the fight. There are also some
indications that they're emotionally abusive to their members, and encourage
them to cut off all contact to non-Scientologist friends and family. These
allegations are difficult to substantiate, in part because the Church is so
aggressive about quelling criticism.

In general, the Intarwebs regard Scientology as an organization that invests
substantial financial and legal resources in limiting free speech on the
internet. This is generally unpopular, regardless of who is doing it. The
Church's status as a religious institution is largely immaterial to this
perception.

[1] Very similar, actually. They claim copyright on their religious writings,
and use that to sue people who release them.

~~~
jontas
There is a free book online by an ex member called A Piece of Blue Sky. Once I
started reading I couldn't stop.. it a very compelling story and it covers a
lot of history in the broader sense (not limited to this specific member's
experience). Definitely worth the read if this is something you are interested
in:

<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/atack/>

~~~
rdmckenzie
Thanks for posting the link... that was a fascinating and illuminating link.
Bookmarked in case someone else needs it later. +1

------
shellox
I still don't understand why they use this one click hoster, which have a
waiting time and limited download rate instead of bittorrent. The files are
large enough and I think enough people would seed it. Decentralization is an
important point for such data leaks as well.

~~~
fromhet
Well, anonymity over bittorrent is hard(er, at least), and that is probably
the reason why the hackers didnt distribute the data in that way. But for us
who didnt do the hack, distributing the files is not as bad to be caught
doing.

So while the hackers release the data in an anonymus manner, we can easily
create a torrent. I would be surprised if one didnt already exist, actually.

------
shellox
This mail from an Austrian police man is weird. <http://pastebin.com/PN2GFaaA>
(German)

~~~
esbwhat
What's so weird about it? He said he's been sick over the holidays and doesn't
want to continue some sort of course he apparently enrolled to

~~~
Kliment
He is also hitting on the course organizer.

------
grandalf
If you think Scientology is "weirder" than mainstream religions, it's b/c you
are buying into the propaganda sponsored by its competitors.

~~~
lobster_johnson
The issue people have with Scientology is not that it's "weird". It's that
they are an organization created expressly as a kind of pyramid scheme
designed to funnel money from its clueless members to its corrupt leaders, and
that they will go great (and highly immoral) lengths to safeguard the
structure of the organization.

All the weirdness -- the bogus science, the alien mythology, the extreme
secrecy and protectiveness, the level hierarchy, etc. -- is merely a side
effect of that goal. The mythology, for example, is the carrot, and the
secrecy is the stick; they need the mythology because they need to feed some
new knowledge (even if bogus) at each level, and they need the secrecy to make
that knowledge desirable in the first place, both to members and to non-
members.

Sure, all religions are "weird". But most religious organizations -- generally
speaking -- genuinely have their members' best interests at heart. Scientology
has no such concerns.

~~~
uptown
"But most religiour organization -- generally speaking -- genuinely have their
members' best interests at heart."

I think that's highly dependent on whether you believe what's being preached.
There's countless examples of mainstream religions exploiting their power for
financial and organizational gain at the expense of individual followers. From
a financial standpoint, just take a look at the Vatican City as an example of
how much money has been funneled from their followers.

~~~
lobster_johnson
Apparently you missed my point. Most religious organizations have elements of
corruption, sure, but Scientology as an organization is built to exploit its
members _by design_.

~~~
uptown
I got your point. But again ... it depends what you believe. For argument's
sake, let's assume there's no such thing as God -- then the entire basis for
every religion is fraudulent and perpetuates falsehoods resulting in the
manipulation of a community of people to think, act, tithe, and multiply
according to the rules of that church. If all faiths happen to be incorrect,
then aren't they guilty of the same sin ... perpetuating a fictional promise
and manipulating a community (whether they know they're doing it or not) in an
exploitive way? Or is it less bad because there's potentially a perceived
positive effect on the individuals and the community?

Look, I realize debating religion online is pretty futile, and I'm no fan of
Scientology or any other religion for that matter. I do get what your saying.
I also have no idea what your religious views are ... but I've had a ton of
debates where people seem to be blinded by how they were brought up and can
only see outward from the religious views they hold as the truth. I suppose
somebody could probably make that same case for my perspective on things.
Personally, I think religion is introduced way before most people have the
mental capacity to comprehend what's being thrust upon them, and I wonder what
the religious landscape would look like if it were the kind of thing people
first-experienced later on in life.

~~~
brey
> For argument's sake, let's assume there's no such thing as God -- then the
> entire basis for every religion is fraudulent

but it's not -knowingly- fraudulent, which is the major test for culpability.

~~~
harshreality
Leaders of pentacostal/evangelical churches, perhaps? Are they knowingly
fraudulent?

There's no way to tell if most religious leaders truly believe, unless you
catch one in an incontrovertible statement of disbelief. Even someone like the
Pope could be going along with it for the prestige, or simply not knowing what
he'd do with his life outside of the Church.

From a non-religious perspective, either someone is brainwashed, or they are
fraudulent. That distinction matters in law, but it doesn't have any bearing
on the value of the religious institution.

------
aj700
Can someone alert the relevant authorities of Germany. Yes, they may have
already noticed this. But: Kann ein deutscher Sprecher mitteilen,
Bundesnachrichtendienst und BfV.

[http://www.bnd.bund.de/EN/__Home/Startseite/startseite__node...](http://www.bnd.bund.de/EN/__Home/Startseite/startseite__node.html?__nnn=true)

<http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/index_en.html>

A least one country takes the threat seriously.

~~~
pgeorgi
Why should German authorities be bothered with an Austrian leak?

------
sakopov
It's illegal to distribute confidential information of another __group __.
This isn't about democrats or republicans. We're not talking about a group of
people here. We're talking about a __religion __. If a religion has "secrets"
which cannot be shared among believers and non-believers than it's not a
religion - it's a sect.

~~~
Falling3
I think you mean cult.

