Anonymous Threatens Massive WikiLeaks-Style Exposure | Hacker News Reader

Anonymous Threatens Massive WikiLeaks-Style Exposure

techcrunch.com

61 pointstarunmitra14 comments

Article 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.

Techcrunch cannot be considered a reputable news source for far more reasons than that.

Well, I can't think of anything which will convince people to moderate their opinions about computer "hackers" better than website defacements and threats.

Agreed. 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.

Anonymous 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.

Hacked site from google cache, some of the files can still be downloaded: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sV8dPXf...

I wouldn't be so quick to copy and paste the command they provided for reassembling the file.

At least not the last part. In any case, I wouldn't be handling these files as root.

From 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.

> 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?

Encrypted 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.

Names 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

>anonymous

why?

releasing confidential government information is probably going to be bad for everyone involved, and does it really serve a real purpose?

Forced 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com