LulzSec Brought Down By Own Leader

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Coming as a surprise to absolutely no one, the head of LulzSec has been working for the FBI since he was busted last year. How many times have we said this? You bust one of these morons and they will tell on everyone.

Working under the Internet alias “Sabu,” the unemployed, 28-year-old father of two allegedly commanded a loosely organized, international team of perhaps thousands hackers from his nerve center in a public housing project on New York’s Lower East Side. After the FBI unmasked Monsegur last June, he became a cooperating witness, sources told FoxNews.com. “They caught him and he was secretly arrested and now works for the FBI.”
Click to expand...
 
I just love the sound of "I told you so". Mess with the Feds and you will get busted.
 
Anonymous are like shark teeth, pull one and another comes in to replace it.
 
Boned..... Just a matter of time till the rest of them fall... they thought they were slick to.... D:
 
lol @ the FBI fighting "anonymous"

whats next, fighting a nebulous enemy like "terror"?

oh, wait, nvm. :p
 
NickJames said:
Anonymous are like shark teeth, pull one and another comes in to replace it.
Click to expand...

except this time the whole jaw is getting removed.

buncha anarchists script kiddies getting what they deserve. Fighting behind a guise of righteous political anguish and fighting the power. ONly an excuse.
 
M93-387711.jpg
 
PaperclipGod said:
lol @ the FBI fighting "anonymous"

whats next, fighting a nebulous enemy like "terror"?

oh, wait, nvm. :p
Click to expand...

I think even the most cynical of us here can admit that these groups need to be brought down for good. They are nothing but lowlife thieving criminals behind a keyboard.
 
"Trust no-one" duh :rolleyes:

"Nice kids, would be a shame if they were taken away from you" said the feds, but who wouldn't have used them like that to capture somebody wanted for criminal doings and fucking with innocent peoples business bigtime?
 
Why do people keep mixing up Anonymous and Lulzsec?

Lulzsec were a bunch of douchebags, no doubt about it. They were just in it "for the lulz" and put tons of people at risk for identity theft in the process.

Anonymous - on the other hand - as loosely tied together as they are, and as many different agendas as there are within this loose group - have some sort of agenda in what they are doing.

You may not agree with their methods, or think that their methods are futile as I do, but they are trying to change the world in their own little way by fighting out against what they see as injustice.

I give them mad props for this. For fighting kiddie porn, for attacking dictatorships online, for taking on police departments responsible for brutality. These are all things I can support.

I just don't think that a banana republic dictator, or some douchebag thug city cop really care that much about how their webpage functions, or at least not enough for them to rethink their ways ad change for the better.

Either way,

Anonymous = flawed group trying to do what they think of as justifiable activism.

Lulzsec = A buch of brats just messing things up to be funny and laugh at others problems.

Big fucking differences, IMHO.
 
I think that having the "head of Lulz" working with the FBI to bring down members is a bad move on the FBI's part. The issue is that this will enrage the ANON machine. In fact I dont believe Lulz has been running the show, it would seem that ANON is more a bunch of radical hackers all like minded doing what each thinks needs to be done. All the FBI has done is pulled some teeth like said above and having a "Leader turn on its own" is a tactic to scare the others out there. If you watch the news its not just a few people doing this but hundreds. These few and the what 60 busted in the last few weeks, but seems that there are still news reports every day of new anon activity. I think the Feds will have a long battle ahead. I read the news every day from various sources and this is just my thoughts. I dont agree with alot of the stuff these guys do, but some of it sure is needed. Just look at the US Gov today its not the people running the show anymore its companies buying our govements and telling them what they want done. We are just money to these crooks.
 
^^^ That's nice and all, but at the end of the day you're trying to justify something that is illegal. And Anonymous doesn't just fight kiddie porn and dictators either. Attacking credit card companies is essentially an attack on everyone. DDoS attacks on the Dept. of Justice, FBI, not just local cops, etc. aren't going to win you friends.
 
kirbyrj said:
^^^ That's nice and all, but at the end of the day you're trying to justify something that is illegal. And Anonymous doesn't just fight kiddie porn and dictators either. Attacking credit card companies is essentially an attack on everyone. DDoS attacks on the Dept. of Justice, FBI, not just local cops, etc. aren't going to win you friends.
Click to expand...

No, you won't win any friends. But the attacks on the CC companies was at least justifiable. The credit card companies refused to be involved with donations to wikileaks after the CC customers used their accounts to donate money, thus limiting freedom of speech by dictating how you can vote with your wallet.

They've clearly done some flat-out retarded stuff, but you can't go Hail Mary Mother of God on us with an appeal to legality or morality on a high ground here. Just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, does it? Because that's what you're implying. Protesting is wrong in many countries. As are females being educated, voting or a free press. The point is they're clearly trying to make a statement about certain wrongs they believe are occurring, whether their actions are illegal or not are an entirely separate matter that's only discussed after the fact.

You don't get to law irrationally. You make rules only after you've debated their legitimacy.
 
kirbyrj said:
^^^ That's nice and all, but at the end of the day you're trying to justify something that is illegal. And Anonymous doesn't just fight kiddie porn and dictators either. Attacking credit card companies is essentially an attack on everyone. DDoS attacks on the Dept. of Justice, FBI, not just local cops, etc. aren't going to win you friends.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I agreed with everything they have done.

I just give them props for standing up for something they believe in.

In a country where so many can't even be bothered to get off their lazy asses and vote it really stands out as a refreshing difference.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038462471 said:
Why do people keep mixing up Anonymous and Lulzsec? *snip*

Anonymous = flawed group trying to do what they think of as justifiable activism.

Lulzsec = A buch of brats just messing things up to be funny and laugh at others problems.

Big fucking differences, IMHO.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with what you said and how you said it. It's easy to get confused between the two.
 
When are the bankers going to get arrested? Oh right, they are a protected species.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038462548 said:
I didn't say I agreed with everything they have done.

I just give them props for standing up for something they believe in.

In a country where so many can't even be bothered to get off their lazy asses and vote it really stands out as a refreshing difference.
Click to expand...

They dont believe in it. Its a convenient excuse to act out their fantasies of anarchy. These are kids who dont know better about anything. Only the sheep believe they are really part of 'the cause'.
 
fdiaz78 said:
I think even the most cynical of us here can admit that these groups need to be brought down for good. They are nothing but lowlife thieving criminals behind a keyboard.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the high life thieving criminals they have been going after......corprate america. your government... and so on...
 
pelo said:
No, you won't win any friends. But the attacks on the CC companies was at least justifiable. The credit card companies refused to be involved with donations to wikileaks after the CC customers used their accounts to donate money, thus limiting freedom of speech by dictating how you can vote with your wallet.
Click to expand...

You really think buying or donating things on credit is with 100% your money? Go to the bank, take out some cash, and send it to Assange. A credit card company can easily dictate what you do with their service. Your freedom of how you use your wallet is already limited since you have interest against you when you use a card. Stop using credit, don't potentially ruin millions of peoples own credit.
 
JustinCorrigible said:
You really think buying or donating things on credit is with 100% your money? Go to the bank, take out some cash, and send it to Assange. A credit card company can easily dictate what you do with their service. Your freedom of how you use your wallet is already limited since you have interest against you when you use a card. Stop using credit, don't potentially ruin millions of peoples own credit.
Click to expand...
^^^^x10000

i swear the self entitlement of these folks is just incomprehensible. Absolutely no common sense, just blame someone else!
 
4saken said:
They dont believe in it. Its a convenient excuse to act out their fantasies of anarchy. These are kids who dont know better about anything. Only the sheep believe they are really part of 'the cause'.
Click to expand...

But people who think government are benevolent are not sheep? LOL
 
Anonymous = OWS = Activism for ???? (we are still deciding!)
Lulz = picking up on what the above entity decides not to do!
 
JustinCorrigible said:
You really think buying or donating things on credit is with 100% your money? Go to the bank, take out some cash, and send it to Assange. A credit card company can easily dictate what you do with their service. Your freedom of how you use your wallet is already limited since you have interest against you when you use a card. Stop using credit, don't potentially ruin millions of peoples own credit.
Click to expand...

Payment companies representing more than 97% of the global market have shut off the funding taps between WikiLeaks and those who would donate to it.
Click to expand...

Includes banks as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/24/bankers-wikileaks-free-speech
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/6/wikileaks_sues_credit_card_companies_over

You need to quit using "you" as well. It implies I had something to do with it. Of course, both of us being here on the intarwebz we clearly don't know jack about each other, yet you've apparently made a startling revelation. Cool story, bro. But whereas I've at least read a bit about it to state that it was the customer's money (debit cards, checking accounts, etc) you've proclaimed it's all based on credit...

When the banking crisis occurred it wasn't just people living off of credit that caused the collapse, but also illegal practices, insider trading and the selling of what amounted to hot air by banks that accompanied the kerplunk.

Not that you're not correct in the sense that people shouldn't be allowed to donate money they don't have wherever they wish. I actually agree with you, but somehow attempting to tie this up with America's problem with credit cards doesn't make any sense with the issue at hand here.
 
You are accusing me of exactly what you just did. You are painting them all as bad people and deserving of prison time.
 
from his nerve center in a public housing project on New York’s Lower East Side.
Click to expand...

See this is why I don't advocate all these super cheap computers for 3rd world countries.
 
jiggz said:
Anonymous = OWS = Activism for ???? (we are still deciding!)
Lulz = picking up on what the above entity decides not to do!
Click to expand...

Anonymous does not equal OWS. They tend to support OWS, but they are not the same, and not really affiliated.

Since both groups rely on loose affiliations of people who kind of do what they want and don't have strong leaders, there is going to be some variations in goals and ideals from person to person, and probably even some overlap in who consider themselves a part of Anonymous and who consider themselves a part of OWS.

Just like Anonymous, OWS is a group of people who are upset, many of which have their own agendas and own things they are upset about.

OWS DOES however center around two main issues:

1.) The use of big money to control politics in such a way that is good for those who hold the big money.

2.) The growing income inequality in the U.S. to the point where the U.S is on the same level as banana republics in Africa, and how this is - in no small part - intentionally created by #1

OWS decries the change in the U.S. from a land of opportunity, where anyone could strike it big through hard work and a little luck, to one where the top income earners have cemented their position in such a way that it keeps the rest of the population down.

Since OWS is a loose knit group of people free to follow their own beliefs, many other issues get pulled in, but the vast majority of OWS agrees that their concerns are centered around the above.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038462825 said:
Anonymous does not equal OWS. They tend to support OWS, but they are not the same, and not really affiliated.

Since both groups rely on loose affiliations of people who kind of do what they want and don't have strong leaders, there is going to be some variations in goals and ideals from person to person, and probably even some overlap in who consider themselves a part of Anonymous and who consider themselves a part of OWS.

Just like Anonymous, OWS is a group of people who are upset, many of which have their own agendas and own things they are upset about.

OWS DOES however center around two main issues:

1.) The use of big money to control politics in such a way that is good for those who hold the big money.

2.) The growing income inequality in the U.S. to the point where the U.S is on the same level as banana republics in Africa, and how this is - in no small part - intentionally created by #1

OWS decries the change in the U.S. from a land of opportunity, where anyone could strike it big through hard work and a little luck, to one where the top income earners have cemented their position in such a way that it keeps the rest of the population down.
Click to expand...

US sound more and more like Brazil.

I suggest that all the Americans who think it's fine to be as inequal as it gets, because, you know, "lazy asses don't do shit and think they deserve things. oh noes, big rich guys ALWAYS worked for it", come to Brazil for a trip. Stay a while. Bring Kevlar.

Income inequality DESTROYS a country. At least it's getting better around here, but it's still a huge issue.
 
JustinCorrigible said:
You really think buying or donating things on credit is with 100% your money? Go to the bank, take out some cash, and send it to Assange. A credit card company can easily dictate what you do with their service. Your freedom of how you use your wallet is already limited since you have interest against you when you use a card. Stop using credit, don't potentially ruin millions of peoples own credit.
Click to expand...

Paypal also refused to do so and were attacked by Anon, and they aren't a CC
 
cdr_74_premium said:
US sound more and more like Brazil.

I suggest that all the Americans who think it's fine to be as inequal as it gets, because, you know, "lazy asses don't do shit and think they deserve things. oh noes, big rich guys ALWAYS worked for it", come to Brazil for a trip. Stay a while. Bring Kevlar.

Income inequality DESTROYS a country. At least it's getting better around here, but it's still a huge issue.
Click to expand...

Once again, that sounds all nice and good, but how do you go about fixing issues with "income inequality"? Punish those who earned money by redistributing it to those who didn't? How do you guard against the mentality that "why should I work when the government will redistribute money my way"?
 
kirbyrj said:
Once again, that sounds all nice and good, but how do you go about fixing issues with "income inequality"? Punish those who earned money by redistributing it to those who didn't? How do you guard against the mentality that "why should I work when the government will redistribute money my way"?
Click to expand...

Ending outsourcing would be a great idea. Frankly, a lot of corporations make out like bandits here in the US due to some tax loopholes and having their workforce overseas. It's shocking to me why something as simple as implementing a system where businesses (all of them, both those based here and abroad) are taxed by how much money they've made here in the US and how many workers they hire here as well, but in a proportional fashion. If you make more money here you should hire more workers here in order to pay fewer taxes. If you make less money you're expected to hire less workers and in turn pay fewer taxes. Currently, there's no such system that forcefully, tax wise, asks businesses to keep their money and employment within US borders. They make an obscene amount of money here and invest it into other countries and we have little problem with it. That's called being a leech at the expense of the well-being of the entire nation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top