SET SAIL FOR FAIL!

Friends across the internet:

We are Lulz Security, and we’re back. Today, November 13 2011, is a big day for us. We successfully completed a DDoS attack on 4chan.org, one of the top 1000 most visited sites in the United States and the world!
This attack not only shows how strong the new Lulzsec is, but the capability we have. With a botnet that can take a site with so much bandwidth such as 4chan down, Lulzsec has so much potential for some epic lulz in the future. Stay tuned!

-Lulz Security

————————————————————————————————————
Previous releases: http://lulzsecurity.com/releases/

http://thepiratebay.org/user/LulzSec/

Twitter:           http://twitter.com/lulzsec

by Jonathon Blakeley
23/10/2011
The UK’s response to the British riots was typical predictable and hypocritical. Whilst happy to encourage popular revolution through explicit and covert means in Syria, Eygpt or Lybia, they are much less happy to think that there could be a people’s revolution in the UK plc. Good Lord no! Thus the rioters were condemned vehemently as scum-bag chav criminals, and treated with full force of the law. Just to be on the “safe” side so as to prevent any form of dissent emerging in the first place, the police via ACPO have infiltrated many layers of society with their own secret police and agent provocateurs. Waiting for the first sniff of criminality to capture & or encourage any dissidents and then criminalise them punitively.

And so it is we are seeing a long list of people that have been turned into criminals, for their beliefs and ideas, not for crimes. People often young men and women given ridiculously large prison sentences for trivial crimes. Stealing a bottle of water – 6 months.

• Charlie Gilmour – 16 months for swinging on a flag.
• Julian Assange for what..? We still don’t know; Rumour and innuendo.
• Jake Davis of Lulzsec for alleged hacktivist activities including website graffiti,
• Gary McKinnon for alleged hacking and downloading of UFO images.
• Bradley Manning Biggest Data leak ever on Lady GaGa Cd’s.

Hackers are the new terrorists

The new thing that is emerging now is how we are seeing hackers being portrayed as terrorists or murderers. Acts carried out on computers have become comparable with acts of extreme violence. People who risk protest are being criminalised, people who protest in the streets are beaten and pepper sprayed, whilst people who protest with computers are declared cyber terrorists.

So Jake Davis; could face 10 years for bringing down a website for a short while. It seems ludicrous; no one was hurt, injured or died. Yet Julian Assange, Jake Davis, Gary McKinnon, all could get a sentences longer than someone on a manslaughter charge.

Following the information leak from Wikileaks the Penta-Con made a big argument about how the security of agents may be compromised and those agents could have their lives put at risk. Lol. Big deal a few CIA moles may be rumbled in their Machiavellian schemes. Good! Its not like they were targeted for assassination by armed drones.

The first step was when animal right protesters were declared as terrorists. Since then we have seen more and more groups similarly demonised. UK Uncut is another that has being portrayed this way.

The real war is for IDEAS

But that doesn’t stop the Elite from trying to stamp ideas out. You can not arrest an idea; but you can make discussion of an idea illegal in some countries. These days this amounts to people telling you what books you can and can not read. If ignorance really is the root of all evil then encouraging others to ignorance seems like madness magnified. The sad fact of the matter is they; the ruling elite and their enforcers, are losing the battle for our “hearts and minds”. The started losing it long ago, and with every new revelation of corruption and complicity the despair in the people grows ever greater. The mismatch between Truth and the Reality they push on us has grown wider and wider. In creating the war on Terror the first task was and still is to control the Language and the media and then everyone else.

Through the media in its many forms we hear of

1. Terrorists
2. Enemy combatants
3. Insurgents
4. Radicals
5. Taliban
6. Islamic Fundamentalist
7. Revolutionary fighters
8. Cyber terrorists
9. Digital Terrorists
10. Islamification
11. Radicalisation

All these words have something in common what is it? A massive emotional effect and are often used to program and denounce & defame people.

The cone of silence

But who are the Elite? The Elite are small collection of individuals some have extreme wealth, some knowledge, some power. Together they rule this planet with little trouble from us at all.

Any one resisting current programming is quickly rooted out in scenes not unlike Invader of the Body Snatchers.

Anonymous for the rich

At Occupy London Protests Julian Assange commented -

Even anonymity it seems has become the domain of the uber rich with their swiss bank accounts. He himself was arrested temporarily over him wearing a Guy Fawkes Anonymous mask. So it is ok for the Rich to hide away in the reclusive retreats and offshore bank account and swiss bank accounts, but for the rest of us, our every move is scrutinised by Intelligence agencies looking for the slightest signs of dissent, & dangerous patterns of behaviour amidst the internet chatter. With this has come a kind of internal censoring by many. We know that Echelon is always listening so we avoid dangerous words and websites for fear of bringing the automatic Echelon system to focus upon one self. Eventually even a real human sigint (Signal Intelligence) operator at 8200 Herzliya Israel, GCHQ Cheltenham/Bude UK or the NSA Maryland USA, might scrutinise my data-trail.

And so I dedicate this post to the SIGINT people who may monitor this data. -

You may just be following orders and doing your Job, just because you are unaware of what happens above you in higher rings of secrecy, does not free you from ethical responsibility. If all the SIGINT people rebelled against Echelon and the Cabal that controls it our world would be a better place. The myth of protecting us all from unseen dangers in just a paranoic meme to gain your trust.

People self censor, encrypt or use code in order to protect one’s online identity. And so the education programs keep reaching out through websites, think tanks and schools. Informing us what to read what not to read, educating us brainwashing us.

If hackers are the new terrorists and hackers generally use computers to test security and steal data at worst, what does that make people who use computers to kill and rape as in some computer games? So are hackers really the new terrorists? Linked-in want us to think so.

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/criminal-law/LAW_CLW/846157-13251370

Cyberterrorists?

Are they really? Where is the moral equivalence between a suicide bomber and Julian Assange and his Wikileaks website. Julian Assange is not trying to kill anyone. Quite the opposite, to try to paint him as such only reveals more clearly who the enemy in our midst really is. Are hackers really the new terrorists or are they the Cyber freedom fighters?

“T” Another Word for Traitor
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: http://pastebin.com/JJ031nWZ
Arturas “T” Rosenbacher: Not to be trusted.

Update…”T is no longer affiliated with Occupy Chicago. He has been removed from all accounts and committees.” Kevin

KQZ7FTXBJPXP

The Chicago activist Arturas Rosenbacher known as “T”, @TOccupy, @USAanon, @Anon2T, @OccupyChicago is a publicly admitted snitch and scam artist. This letter attempts to address a number of the controversies and security concerns involving T. We are not the only people worried about “T,” World Net Daily (http://bit.ly/n6rvTb) clearly has known about the issues surrounding “T” for sometime. Their article and ours calls into question “T’s” seemingly trustworthy and jovial nature.

Due to this, Anonymous warns you NOT TO TRUST “T!”

“T” runs the OccupyChicago facebook account, the OccupyChicago twitter account, helps with the occupychi.org website, as well as controls all funds/donations for the OccupyChicago group. Because of this, all actions and organizations relying on him are compromised. This means all donations to the Chicago Occupation are in danger of never getting to those in the Occupation because “T” has access to the account.

As mentioned earlier “T” uses many monikers such as @OccupyChicago, @USAanon, @AnonSabu, @Anon2T, @AnonSabu, @theD3V, and is also an admin for occupychi.org. Many of the twitter accounts have been since deleted, or have most content removed, although you can view the contents of some of these twitter accounts by searching for the name in google.

“T” has publicly confirmed his affiliation with @AnonCMD and #RefRef on the October 16th Occupy Chicago JustinTV stream which can be seen at time 1:13:55 http://www.justin.tv/campoutchi/b/297662933 or visit the audio only version on Youtube, http://youtu.be/ITNRhxH_WW4. He has also admitted to many people in person and on the Internet to being the same person.

#RefRef Controversy

“T” has betrayed the trust of many people in Anonymous causing him to be nearly universally condemned and banished from many anonymous channels. @AnonCMD claimed to have invented a new DDoS tool known as #RefRef and for months he gained the trust of many anons, announcing that he was going to release this tool on September 17 (the start of OWS). This was a lie.

“T” also collected donations from the Anonymous community for the release of #RefRef. When 9/17 came around, he admitted it was a hoax and completely fabricated all the claims made twitter and other websites.

His website anoncmd.wordpress.com was “hacked” exposing @AnonCMD for what it was. Although in the truly cynical and pathological manner typical of “T” he later claimed to taking down his own website and writing the statement himself.

It is said that @AnonCMD was collecting a lot of private information about anonymous members including names as well as private information about upcoming operations/hacks. Because of this, he was kicked out and ostracized from most anonymous communities, condemned as a “movement traitor” and “hoaxer” who betrayed the trust of many. (Google searches for “anoncmd” and “#refref” demonstrate this).

The Department of Homeland Security released a global warning regarding the #RefRef tool prior to it’s release date and regarded it as a serious concern (http://bit.ly/oqW5mv). Why is “T” going around admitting to being the mastermind behind #RefRef while DHS is actively looking for him? AnonCMD admitted in early september that he was visited by the FBI where he says they seized his equipment and questioned him about refref and September 17th. Could it be that AnonCMD agreed to work with federal law enforcement? Details of his raid/visit/questioning should be explained in full detail.

Bragging / Making False Claims

“T” has also bragged on several profile websites that he is or was affiliated with LulzSec and WikiLeaks. Many LulzSec members (Sabu for example) has publicly outed “T” as a liar and hoaxer. In the past, @Anoncmd has allegedly attacked wikileaks.org’s website with DDoS attacks because of “monetary disputes” between @Anoncmd and Julian Assange.

This is assumed to be another fabrication created to cause big the “Anonymous Attacks WikiLeaks” headlines. It is universally known that Anonymous nearly universally supports WikiLeaks. We would never condone an attack on our brothers and sisters at WikiLeaks.

In late August, “T” used one of his twitter accounts to promote a PasteBin (http://pastebin.com/y3DtPMr0) advertised as “WikiLeaks D0X” which included the name “Arturas Rosenbacher” as the “executive director” of WikiLeaks. This was never corroborated ANYWHERE else on the Internet and clearly is another attempt at misdirection.

He has told different stories to various members of the Occupation community either saying that he still works for Wikileaks, or that he was working for Wikileaks until financial issues came up between him and Assange. It is highly doubtful that an organization like WikiLeaks which has many established security protocols in place to reduce possibilities of breaches, as well as protect the anonymity of their volunteers, would trust a 19 year old kid with an untrustworthy history.

It must be stressed and repeated that “T’s” claim that he and Anonymous attempted a DDoS attacks against WikiLeaks served to drive a false wedge between Anonymous and WikiLeaks. This was an action by a provocateur to create a false schism between allies. Can we not assume “T” will try and do this again to the Chicago Occupation movement? Has he not already done this with various inflammatory statements regarding the Police and Radicals?

On October 18th, the twitter/facebook account for OccupyChicago was allegedly “hacked” and had posted links to the WSJ article about “T”. It is difficult to tell whether this actually happened or not, but T did remove “all other admins” from posting to it. “T” had previously “hacked” his own website (anoncmd.wordpress.com, which previously advertised #refref) taking down all content and putting up this message: “@AnonCMD was setting up a massive DoX of most anonops op’s and anonymous’ members. #RefRef Never Existed. We have taken him over, and he is done. He also used one password for all of his services. Expect a DoX soon, we now have his Twitter and Email. – AnonSabu(not the real Sabu)” When asked about this, he said that he “hacked” his own website and put up that message himself. Does this type of misdirection make any sense unless “T” was a provocateur?

Other Issues

“T” has frequently used the OccupyChicago twitter/facebook account for his own purposes/politics acting outside the general will of the group. One notable example is when “T” posted a statement on the Facebook group condemning the October 10th planned civil disobedience as the work of “violent union members” that had “nothing to do with OccupyChicago”.

This message not cleared by other Occupy Chicago members, and the vast amount of the protesters overwhelmingly supported the civil disobedience (we attended the protest in mass). This message had a (hopefully minor) effect of driving a wedge between union members and Occupy Chicago, as well as condemn tactics like civil disobedience as “violent” despite the movement’s general approval of CD.

This was was later deleted after people brought it up. Furthermore, “T” was encouraging people on the OccupyChicago facebook page to “send pictures and information about the arrests” to “T”’s personal gmail address. The CD was planned in advance by many individuals and had the work of legal advisers and protest planners ahead of time, so why would “T” be the person folks should be sending info/pics to regarding the CD?

Conclusion

It is alarming that many of OccupyChicago’s tech infrastructure is relying on the work of an untrustworthy individual like “T”. At best, “T” is a socially awkward liar and hoaxer who has manipulated and betrayed the trust of many people, and is not being open/honest about his history with other OccupyChicago people.

At worst, T is intentionally trying to disrupt OccupyChicago, and is possibly working for the Banks or Law Enforcement.

Regardless, he should come clean and openly address each and every one of issues brought up here, and have his control of the OccupyChicago funds and the tech infrastructure removed and distributed more evenly to other volunteers in a transparent manner.

If you feel like you need more background information on this complicated subject please consult the following: http://bit.ly/qdzsP0 | http://bit.ly/nSPYHy | http://bit.ly/qylASV | http://bit.ly/pHIN2a | http://bit.ly/phhpDJ | http://pastebin.com/y3DtPMr0 and http://pastebin.com/cXMv2nCh

“T” we are coming for you.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us

Web Designers vs Web Developers is brought to you by Wix.com
Use creative design to make a Free Website
You are most welcome to share this infographic with your audience.

What is the difference between a Web designer and Web developer? Web designers create a look & feel, developers turn that into a website. Generally the designer provides the graphic files optimsed for the web to the developer. The developer then weaves code around the graphic files to create the website.

“It’s a bit like drawing a picture of a cake then giving that picture to someone who can cook.”

“What is the difference between Web Design and Development? Web designers make pictures developers make code.”

Hacktivism is a portmanteau, a linguistic blend, of hack and activism. This leads to a controversy of meaning because both the terms Hacker and Activism are morally broad terms. Hacking, which originally (in relation to computers), meant “elegant computer programming” [1] has been used, in the mainstream media, almost exclusively to mean “illegally breaking into computers”. Activism similarly includes both explicitly non-violent action (Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi) and violent revolutionary activities (Malcolm X and Che Guevara).

If Hacking as “illegally breaking into computers” is assumed then hacktivism could be defined as “the nonviolent use of illegal or legally ambiguous digital tools in pursuit of political ends”. These tools include web site defacements, redirects, denial-of-service attacks, information theft, web site parodies, virtual sit-ins, virtual sabotage, and software development.”[2] It is often understood as the writing of code to promote political ideology – promoting expressive politics, free speech, human rights, or information ethics. Acts of hacktivism are carried out in the belief that proper use of code will be able to produce similar results to those produced by regular activism or civil disobedience.

Hacktivist activities span many political ideals and issues. Freenet is a prime example of translating political thought (anyone should be able to speak) into code. Hacktivismo is an offshoot of Cult of the Dead Cow; its beliefs include access to information as a basic human right. The loose network of programmers, artists and radical militants 1984 network liberty alliance is more concerned with issues of free speech, surveillance and privacy in an era of increased technological surveillance.

Hacktivism is a controversial term, and can often be misconstrued as cyberterrorism. What separates hacktivism from cyberterrorism is a distinctly political or social cause behind the “haction”. Some argue it was coined to describe how electronic direct action might work toward social change by combining programming skills with critical thinking. Others use it as practically synonymous with malicious, destructive acts that undermine the security of the Internet as a technical, economic, and political platform.

Essentially, the controversy reflects two divergent philosophical strands within the hacktivist movement. One strand thinks that malicious cyber-attacks are an acceptable form of direct action. The other strand thinks that all protest should be peaceful, refraining from destruction.

via Hacktivism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A Bloggers’ Code of Ethics

Some bloggers recently have been debating what, if any, ethics the Weblog community should follow. Since not all bloggers are journalists and the Weblog form is more casual, they argue they shouldn’t be expected to follow the same ethics codes journalists are. But responsible bloggers should recognize that they are publishing words publicly, and therefore have certain ethical obligations to their readers, the people they write about, and society in general.

CyberJournalist.net has created a model Bloggers’ Code of Ethics, by modifying the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics for the Weblog world. These are just guidelines — in the end it is up to individual bloggers to choose their own best practices. CyberJournalist.net follows this code and urges other Weblogs to adopt this one or similar practices.

Integrity is the cornerstone of credibility. Bloggers who adopt this code of principles and these standards of practice not only practice ethical publishing, but convey to their readers that they can be trusted.

A BLOGGERS’ CODE OF ETHICS

Be Honest and Fair

Bloggers should be honest and fair in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Bloggers should:

• Never plagiarize.

• Identify and link to sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.

• Make certain that Weblog entries, quotations, headlines, photos and all other content do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

• Never distort the content of photos without disclosing what has been changed. Image enhancement is only acceptable for for technical clarity. Label montages and photo illustrations.

• Never publish information they know is inaccurate — and if publishing questionable information, make it clear it’s in doubt.

• Distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.

• Distinguish factual information and commentary from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

Minimize Harm

Ethical bloggers treat sources and subjects as human beings deserving of respect.

Bloggers should:

• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by Weblog content. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.

• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of information is not a license for arrogance.

• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.

• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects, victims of sex crimes and criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

Be Accountable

Bloggers should:

• Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

• Explain each Weblog’s mission and invite dialogue with the public over its content and the bloggers’ conduct.

• Disclose conflicts of interest, affiliations, activities and personal agendas.

• Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence content. When exceptions are made, disclose them fully to readers.

• Be wary of sources offering information for favors. When accepting such information, disclose the favors.

• Expose unethical practices of other bloggers.

• Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

via A Bloggers’ Code of Ethics – CyberJournalist.net – Online News Association – Ethics and Credibility.

The Jackeey Wallpaper app provided themed Star Wars and My Little Pony wallpaper, said Lookout, but it also collected information about the user’s phone number, unique identifier and voicemail number, before beaming back this data to a server in China. However, Lookout stressed that there was no evidence that this data had been collected or used for malicious purposes.

“While this sort of data collection from a wallpaper application is certainly suspicious, there’s no evidence of malicious behaviour,” said MaHaffey. “There have been cases in the past on other mobile platforms where well-intentioned developers are simply overzealous in their data gathering, without having malicious intent.”

Google said it had suspended the application while it investigated the matter. Lookout said that even apps that seemed legitimate could be modified retrospectively to add a “rogue” element.

via Google Android apps ‘collecting personal data’ – Telegraph.