

Interview with key LulzSec hacker - __hudson__
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20649-exclusive-first-interview-with-key-lulzsec-hacker.html?full=true

======
trb
I wonder how Antisec or LulzSec are supposed to bring about change. The
interviewee talks about educating and changing people to fight corruption and
abuse, but I'm not sure that is happening. For example, look at his
involvement in the Tunisian revolution. He talked about disrupting the
Tunesian government by defacing the prime ministers website. Did that actually
help the Tunisians? I'm under the impression that the hard work got done by
the protesters on the street, triggered by Mohamed Bouazizi when he burned
himself.

I think it's not that different in democratic countries. Change comes about
when enough people demand it and put pressure on their representatives. People
have to be motivated to work together in large groups, since three letters
demanding the same thing won't impress anyone, but a few thousand might. The
work of lobbyists has to be countered, corruption has to be documented and
brought to court, where hard evidence is a necessity. It takes lot of very
demanding, hard work, without any direct gratification for a long time.

LulzSec/Antisec/Anonymous do nothing to help with that work. Instead, I fear
that their actions will be used by politicians like Sarkozy to effect a policy
of stronger internet regulation. In the end, these hacker groups might even do
harm.

~~~
JanezStupar
It's complicated but I think he's right. What it does is it raises awareness -
especially amongst younger crowd that is more interested in vandalism than
political activism. In a way this is a gateway into the whole
privacy/security/activist culture.

It will bring many young people over to the dark side, where they will slowly
start learning about events and people participating and sacrificing for joint
causes.

And many of these young, rebellious people are tomorrows leaders. Who may
through sheer vandalism and rebellion, gain their first cause.

~~~
qF
Personally I feel that you're being a bit too optimistic. LulzSec was much
louder about the fact they did it for the 'lulz' rather than for any noble
agenda. Encouraging people to log in to random people's FB account and ruin
their relationships serves no purpose. Interestingly enough @Anon_central
recently tweeted a qualification about their supporters (which has a great
overlap with LulzSec), which to me shows that you're being too optimistic [1].
Especially considering that Anon is supposed to be more ethical compared to
LulzSec..

[1] <https://twitter.com/#!/Anon_Central/status/87402917006557184>

~~~
JanezStupar
Oh I don't think they are some kind of Interwebz Mother Theresa incarnate,
they most obviously are not. And indeed the question of are their deeds more
positive than negative in net appears not to be in their favor.

However if I retort to D&D classification. Nowadays Lawful Good can hardly
achieve anything meaningful without tripping over themselves.

If general tech community is Chaotic Good. The Anon seem to be Chaotic
Neutral, LulzSec appear to be Neutral Neutral (or True Neutral).

But that does not mean that no good can come of their actions. Its just more
unpredictable. Which may be good - since the opressors cannot fight an enemy
without agenda.

------
rpearl
According to a variety of sources, including
[http://th3j35t3r.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/lulzsecs-
cloudflar...](http://th3j35t3r.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/lulzsecs-cloudflare-
configuration/) and <http://backtracesecurity.com/page2> Sabu is Hector
Monsegur. He lives in New York. He owns the domain prvt.org. This is the whois
before he remembered to anonymize it:

<http://pastebin.com/Atf3V2u9>

~~~
rufibarbatus
What you just did, in my country, is a rather serious fellony, and I'm
struggling to see your point.

(EDIT: though I'm still struggling to see the point of the parent comment, the
above was in response to a slightly different phrasing that might've gotten
the worst of me. At any rate, I don't wish to persue this dicussion any
further.)

~~~
rpearl
In what country is what I did a felony? I didn't uncover the documentation
myself, I just gave you a link.

His anonymity is meaningless. Actions are performed by people; there is no way
to hide effectively forever.

He is trying to not be caught when committing crimes. So, my comment was to
help publicize the information the criminal doesn't want to be found.

~~~
rufibarbatus
Brazil. Without trial or hard evidence, you're not supposed to associate
people of being that criminal persona. That'd be vexatious litigation and
libel (or slander, or defamation — English is not my first language, I'm not
sure which word is the appropriate one here).

But don't read it like me pointing at you and saying "in Brazil you'd get your
arse fined for that!" Read it as: I was taught to believe that what you just
did is very serious and so I'm trying to see the relevance of your comment.

If you think you have hard evidence that you know who commited a fellony, go
tip the police. I wouldn't in good faith want to attach that much stigma to
someone's name _in a public forum_ when there's a risk, a real chance I might
be wrong.

~~~
rpearl
Very well, I have updated my post to clarify the people who originally made
the claim.

~~~
ljf
You've still left it up - in the UK that would be slanderous - and I do not
feel this is the place for such gossip and name calling.

If that is his correct details - fine, but if not you are messing with
someone's life and I don't really understand why you are doing that? If you
went out and tracked this guy down, fair enough, but you are just repeating
gossip.

Can you let me know what you planned to achieve with this?

------
ChuckMcM
I was more impressed with Khalid who went to Egypt and faced the bullets.
Breaking into web sites, exposing passwords, is like 'pirate radio' in that
its relatively low risk for the participants.

I appreciate that you can't believe Sony or someone who says "we'll keep your
data safe" but I have to believe there are better ways to get that information
out without all the collateral damage. I continue to hope that folks find a
way to elevate the discussion without the theatrics.

~~~
insickness
Tank man in Tianamen Square changed the world forever. But it wasn't the
action itself that changed things but what he inspired in others.

The biggest threat to our world today isn't any single dictatorship or
government. It is the corrupt intertwining of financial and political power.
When corruption is revealed it inspires action in others.

This is the new frontier of activism. Physical protest is action on the ground
that can only accomplish so much without the air support of information
warfare.

~~~
yaix
How did Tank Man change the world forever?? Here in China, hardly anybody has
ever seen the picture or heard of him. Unfortunately, he seems to be just a
good campaigning picture in the West.

~~~
petewailes
He changed how the West perceived China forever. He might not have changed
things in China itself, but that picture has helped influence foreign policy
ever since.

It raised the profile of human rights abuses in China, along with the whole
Tiananmen Square incident, which has been on the agenda of every Western
government since.

~~~
yaix
Yes, as I say, the photo is great for campaigning.

Only a few years later, half a million people was massacred with knifes(!) in
Rhuanda, and nobody in the West really cared. So, the photo didn't really
change anything. Its just good to lobby against China.

And talking about the "Tiananmen Masacre", only 20 years before that, the same
thing happened in Mexico, and the West had no problem celebrating the Olympic
Games a week(!) later, only 1 Kilometer(!) away from the place of the crime.
The Mexican Gov't of the time used Snipers instead of tanks, though. Look up
"Massacre of Tlatelolco".

Ironically, human rights abuses at that time where actually declining, having
seen a peak towards the end of the Mao regime.

------
jackfoxy
This is an interview about politics. I think it is important to publish, but
it demeans science journalism to publish it in this particular venue.

~~~
jackfoxy
I hope all my down-voters understood the venue I referred to was New
Scientist, not HN.

~~~
Peroni
New Scientist has a thriving and coherent Tech element. Sabu's motivations may
be heavily political but the purpose of the interview is to provide a direct
insight into one of the key members of LulSec and help people understand that
their motivations aren't exclusively 'for the lulz'.

Regardless of Sabu's motivation, I am confident that a huge percentage of New
Scientist readers will find the article fascinating and thought provoking as I
certainly did.

I gave a lot more credence to the article having read it on New Scientist as
opposed to what my opinion may be if the same interview was published on
Cracked or Fox News.

------
eLobato
Sorry but where has Sabu confirmed that this was an actual interview?

------
nhangen
This feels more like a PR piece than an interview.

~~~
joelmichael
What questions would you have asked?

~~~
gdcbyers
How does breaking into private systems and releasing customers personal
information expose abuse and corruption or promote human rights?

Does Sony commit human rights atrocities I am not aware of? The exposed poor
security in select system, perhaps. Does that amount to abuse, corruption or
human rights violations? Hardly, irresponsibility at worst.

~~~
antihero
I think that the point is, because they did it, someone else could - they
released the info so people could change their passwords, as opposed to using
that information for nefarious purposes. It's quite common for companies as
large as Sony to simply ignore things like this until they become a problem.
So they're making it a problem, but one that is transparent.

~~~
gdcbyers
"they released the info so people could change their passwords"

They didn't need to release it for people to change their passwords. Wouldn't
proving they compromised the database have be enough? Why does releasing
innocent people's information constitute some kind of act of heroism? They did
use it for nefarious purposes. They used it for their own personal gain
(media/hype/pleasure/whatever). Don't be fooled into thinking they some how
did this with your best interest at heart. Not having your info released was
what was in your best interest.

They are no more transparent about their operations then Sony is. I find it
hard to take people who preach about transparency well wearing the mask of
anonymity seriously.

To hold these kids up as an example of "social justice" or some kind of
"social movement" or even "security movement" is ludicrous. They are
criminals. The only direct benefit of their actions was their own recognition,
something the community seemed all too willing to give them.

You really think Sony is now going to be more open about their security
practices? Dream on space cadet.

------
canistr
The interviewer should have asked what he thought of Stuxnet.

I am very curious to hear what these 'hacktivists' think of white hats in the
military and how they will try to weasel their way around an answer that
justifies such military action.

~~~
Tangaroa
Sabu has already called private-sector white hats "terrorists" when he
launched AntiSec, so military white hats don't have much of a chance of
gaining his approval.

He seems to be the empty rebel with an appeal for the rhetoric of early 20th-
century anarchists and mid-century Leninists but no coherent ideology to back
it up. His political motivation is all about "fighting the power" as the old
phrase goes. I doubt he considers the US military as being capable of doing
good, since it exists to protect the wealthy and their interests. He would see
Stuxnet as an act of oppression against the freedom of the people of Iran. If
Iran had developed the same virus to sabotage a US nuke plant used for
building weapons, he would be for it.

------
Shenglong
The best line in this entire article: _LulzSec's name comes from Lulz, a
corruption of LOL, often denoting laughter at the victim of a prank._

------
dools
Where does the abject slaying of Distribute IT fit into this heady idealism?

------
veb
He sounds like a politician...

~~~
asdkl234890
Because he wants to curtail everyone's freedoms to save the children?

~~~
veb
Nope, he said all the _right_ things to say, to get people to follow him, or
think he's not such a bad guy after all.

~~~
glassx
Maybe he's just that, a great guy speaking his mind.

------
kahawe
> _"Disrupt the government of Tunisia," they said, and we did. We infiltrated
> the prime minister's site and defaced it externally._

This is about as "disruptive" as smearing "penis" on a Tunisian government
building but I love how they sell off their website "hacks" as amazing and
courageous acts of human rights.

> _I mean, we're talking about the potential of crashing stocks or spreading
> damaging rumours._

Well, Assange is way ahead of you with the Bank of America shenanigans...

~~~
count
While things like this don't disrupt the functioning of most of the people in
the government, it definitely has a fairly significant impact on the mental
state of the senior leadership of many organizations.

Having your public website defaced and on the news puts you in the spotlight.
It also pushes senior leadership, who generally dont understand what it means,
into thinking that actual operational systems could just as easily be
destroyed or messed with ("what else could they do").

Don't underestimate the importance and impact of a technical PSYOP against
non-technical folks. If nothing else, I bet it provided a 1-2 hour distraction
from 'work' for the senior leadership involved.

------
AndrewMoffat
I'm kind of shocked at the lack of over-inflated ego.

------
mrmadden
I know this guy's identity 100% To tell or not to tell?

------
romland
The fact that he claims to be into politics and then goes on to say that the
arrest of Julian Assange was absurd speak volumes to me.

Assange was arrested due to rape charges and then refused to show up for
preliminary hearings. But maybe Sabu's stuck in a filterbubble.

~~~
paradoja
He has not been arrested due to rape charges, to begin with, because said
charges have not been brought up. That said, had he been arrested, he couldn't
have refused to show up for any hearings.

I suppose this also speaks volumes to you.

~~~
romland
My English is perhaps not 100% when it comes to describing legal matters like
this, so I'll just quote Wikipedia to clarify what I was trying to say.

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange> : On 20 August 2010,
Swedish police began an investigation into two sexual encounters involving
Assange. Assange has said allegations of wrongdoing are "without basis",
describing all the sexual encounters as consensual. In December 2010, Assange,
then in Britain, learned that the Swedish authorities had issued a European
Arrest Warrant (EAW) to extradite him to Sweden for questioning. Assange
appealed the EAW, and a District Judge (Magistrate's Court) in England ruled
that Assange should be extradited. Assange has appealed the extradition
decision.

There is even more at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Judicial_Authority_v_Ju...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Judicial_Authority_v_Julian_Assange)

Conspiracy theories are fun and all that, but...

