FBI Raids NY Homes of "Anonymous" Hackers

The FBI has swooped down on the homes of Anonymous members in Long Island and Brooklyn. They are executing search warrants.

More than 10 FBI agents arrived at the Baldwin, N.Y., home of Giordani Jordan with a search warrant for computers and computer-related accessories, removing at least one laptop from the premises.

< British Hearings Underway: Murdochs to Appear | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Call me old (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:08:38 AM EST
    or perhaps ill-informed (or both), but I find it difficult to support supposed activists that claim to fight for "Internet freedom" when their methods consist of defacing websites and shutting down servers.

    I hear ya that it ain't exactly... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:39:41 AM EST
    righteous...but they do have excellent taste in the websites they deface and the servers they cyber-attack.  This is undisputable in my opinion...I mean they ain't defacing Talkleft, they're giving the banksters and the warmongers a hard time.

    I'm glad somebody is because our elected reps sure ain't interested in any of that.  


    Whether you agree with the law (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    or not, we do have a court system and a government that is suppose to arbitrate such things.

    The Anonymous vigilante group turned its efforts to the Arizona police department in late June, posting personal information of law officers and hacking and defacing websites in response, the group claims, to the state's controversial SB1070 immigration law.

    Once these actions becomes acceptable, what do we say when the other side starts up? Nut cases are not limited to just the Right, or to the Left.


    It would be nice... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:16:27 AM EST
    to have government and courts that arbitrated fairly...but we don't.

    Until then, we can judge such actions on a case by casis basis.  So far, I got nothing but good things to say about Anonymous' actions.  I like how they roll.


    No more secrets (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 03:22:35 PM EST
    and effing deal with it, General Ripper.

    The hackers of the future are going to make the Church Committee look like the Log Closet Republicans.

    If we had elected officials who weren't on the take with one foot in the revolving door, we wouldn't need hackers.


    Plus the Premise... (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:45:41 AM EST
    ... he is making is that there are actually young hackers on the right.

    I know, I'm still laughing.

    But I do agree with his point, but this is gorilla warfare type stuff.  When you can't beat the man at his game, you do what you can.  It's why some people bomb planes, and hide in trees with their muskets shooting at people wearing red coats.

    Hacking websites...  what does it really accomplish, I mover my account from Citibank to BoA, from Sony to Nintendo.  No, it's a nuisance that IMO serves no real purpose.

    Start exposing the people behind the corps and you might make a difference.  A corp is an imaginary devise to shelter the real crooks.

    And Jim, I am fine with exposing left, right, up, and down.  Anyone playing dirty is gets a thumbs up from me.


    Why do you think hackers have (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 03:32:15 PM EST
    to be young??

    Wasn't it Churchill who said something like... If a man is under 30 and is a Conservative he has no heart.. If he is over 30 and is a Liberal he has no brain.

    Young techies become old techies. Trust me. I see one every day when I shave.


    pffftttt (none / 0) (#46)
    by sj on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 08:29:24 PM EST
    I've always thought that's a very glib and stupid statement.  No one right 100% of the time.  Even when they're being clever.

    What Churchill should've said (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    was: if a man bombs and strafes African and Indian villages from the air when he's young, and then builds an entire legacy later on three or four speeches he gave during WWII and a few semi-clever, drunken bon mots, his name is probably Churchill..

    This from a fellow with no checking account. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:33:42 PM EST
    Would you feel differently if you had one?

    If I had one.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 01:20:52 PM EST
    I'd be a totally different person, so its hard to answer that:)

    I will say I find it kinda hard to feel bad for people who come up with fleas when they knowingly and willingly lie down with bankster dogs.  And the same goes for me and my economic support of federal, state, & local government.  I shouldn't whine too much next time I get arrested when I knowingly and willingly chip in to pay for my own oppression....though in my defense if I didn't, I'd get locked up for that...so its a little different than giving the bank your money.


    The next time you get arrested? (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    Probably want to avoid that at all costs.  No dessert.  

    The law of probabilities... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 01:40:40 PM EST
    say I can't run good for ever, but here's hoping and knocking on wood!

    Last time I didn't eat the sandwich...hunger strike for lack of toilet paper:)


    Having a Bank Account... (none / 0) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 01:53:15 PM EST
    ... is not laying down with dogs not matter how you try and spin it. Your funds come from a bank and end up in a bank.  Who do you think controls the money orders (checks) you use.  And I suspect the people you are trying to jilt actually make more money from the method of bill payment you use.

    I am about 90% sure, our company will not issue a paper check for payroll.  If you want to see you paycheck, it's online, the days of handing out checks or psuedo-checks hasn't been used in at least 5 years here.

    It might work for you and hey, that's cool, but suggesting that the rest of us are somehow in cahoots with bankers is like suggesting a heart attach victim is lying down with in insurance dogs when he goes to the emergency room for treatment.  He doesn't actually need insurance, just as I don't need a name account, but in reality, not having them is IMO not real bright.

    It's a necessary function of the modern world and it sucks to prop up people/corps we don't like.  But myself, I am not carrying around the kind of cash, period, nor am I going to pay someone to convert my check to cash it.  And while I am at, those place, maybe not as powerful, but certainly far less scrupulous in the grand scheme of things than banks.


    far less scrupulous..... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Rojas on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 02:00:09 PM EST

    OK (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 02:35:35 PM EST
    How about equally as un-scrupulous ?

    Ain't trying to jilt nobody bro... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    I just don't like 'em...how they roll, how they treat broked*ck customers, what they're doing to our country...and I'm not a big believer in "if ya can't beat 'em join 'em".  The third option is don't play or limit your play.

    I'm eccentric, not stupid...I know I ain't doing no better economically paying the check cashing guy to convert checks to cashish and buying money orders when needed...but it does feel better not to bed in bed with the bastards anymore than I absolutely have to.  

    It may be a necessary function in your and the majority's modern world, but not mine.  The minor inconveniences are worth their weight in gold to my conscience, and I function just fine...for now.  I do worry about the day I am forced by law to get a checking account.


    That's My Point... (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 03:10:06 PM EST
    I am with you and totally get it, I hate them as well.  They are crooks.

    But what I don't like is phrases like 'laying down with them', 'joining them', or 'in bed with the bastards'.  

    That's simply not the case, they got us by the balls, and because you have a life that permits the 'freedom' to bypass it somewhat, you're implying an actual choice.

    It's like the person who works across the street from where they live telling the rest of us that we are in bed with Ford, BP, State Farm or whatever evil corp we use to get to work so we can be can make a couple bucks.

    Sure, no one technically needs a car, a place to live, a job, insurance, money, or a bank account, but in the modern society, those really are necessities except for a very few.  

    If I was living somewhere that allowed me to barter my crops for everything I needed, you wouldn't take kindly to me saying you in cahoots with Geithner because you use cash.  Or that you are propping up Obama's financial policies by using US currency.

    How we got from hackers to bartering for rent I will never know.


    LOL.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 03:15:21 PM EST
    thats how we do...but we probably should use an open thread.

    Last thought, I am in bed with the dogs at Treasury, and in bed with government dogs in general. I am an enabler out of convenience. Thats not insulting, its the f*ckin' truth! I'm well aware of my own piker-dom...selling sh*t made in sweatshops overseas, paying taxes...no doubt I'm part of the problem too:)


    Kdog (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 03:28:26 PM EST
    You have to be a fan of John D MacDonald's intrepid knight errant, Travis McGee.

    If not, get a book, read it and you will be.


    Kdog does have a certain Travis (none / 0) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    McGee-ness about him, doesn't he? If you can overlook Travis' somewhat backward views about teh gays and to a lesser extent women, which is a product of the time in which these books were written, he is a thoroughly delightful fellow.

    And, like our dear friend and comrade Kdog, Travis lives as far off the financial services grid as one possibly can. No credit cards, no bank accounts. He keeps his cash in secret hiding places on his boat. And he has a certain knight-errant, titling at the windmills of power thing about him, kind of like our kdog.

    Jim is right, kdog, if you haven't read the Travis McGee books, get yourself to the library and start reading. My local library had only a few of the books, so I scoured Powell's used books until I found them all, bought them and enjoyed the read.

    If you cannot find them at your library, let me know. I think I can ship my copies off to you. They are a good read, but light and not something I'll want to re-read time and again.


    Oh, I dunno (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 11:52:03 PM EST
    I think he was well ahead of his time.

    And they were just page turners. Perfect for airplane flights.


    Only You... (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 04:39:57 PM EST
    This farm boy was thinking more like corn or apples in regards to crops.

    I think this is all boiling down to nomenclature.  To me, 'being in bed' implies some sort of mutual benefit, both parties getting some action.  The arrangement I have with my bank is more like shower scene from OZ. I get drilled hard, but I live another another day.  Not exactly the stuff dreams are made of.


    Only one laptop at the Jordan residence? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 09:05:34 AM EST
    Doesn't sound like they got what they came for.  Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know anything about hacking, just thought more computer equipment would likely be needed and involved.

    Hot dog... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 09:10:06 AM EST
    Anonymous cell allegedly right down the Southern State Pkwy in Baldwin...wild.

    Yay Boo Yay Boo thats the thing to do.  If ya like it holler "Yay", and if ya don't ya holler "Boo".


    Kdog (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 09:41:44 AM EST
    If I remember correctly you are for the Wikileaks hackers on the basis that state secrets and what our "betters" do should be read/seen by all.

    Will you agree then that the wire tappers and pingers in the current uproar are at least as noble as the Wikileaks folks??

    I mean one used a computer and free workers. The other used bribes and a computers/telephones.

    One focused on the government. The other focused on government and other people in the public eye.


    Non-Sense Jim (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 01:23:02 PM EST
    We, Americans, have paid for every single secret they keep from us, we should have the right to know what our money is being used for with very few exceptions.

    We have a 'right' to privacy from the very government we pay for, period.  How we have arrived at a place in which our funds are taken w/o explanation I will never know.

    Releasing embarrassing govt docs is pretty tame compared to interfering in a murder investigation.


    You're stretching pal... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:16:36 AM EST
    Rupert's minions were allegedly hacking 9/11 victim's phones, a young kidnapping/murder victim's phone...I'd hardly call that "fighting the power".

    I like Anonymous for simply giving power a headache, if nothing else.  Same for Wikileaks. News Corp. is not Anonymous or Wikileaks, not even in the same ballpark, not even the same sport.


    Oh, I agree that the evileeeeeee (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:36:52 AM EST
    reporters and corrupt police violated the privacy of some.... But doesn't leaking information that can help our enemies and kill thousands raise just a bit of ire?

    Look, if NO privacy and NO secrets are to be the new standard, so be it. But I can't agree that the violation of privacy of some movie star is worthy of outrage while secret DOS conversations are fair game.


    Personal versus private (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:55:18 PM EST
    You are still refusing to accept the difference between public and private.  Govt used to have a right to privacy to protect troops and that has now been perverted.  I have a right to data so I know what they are doing so I can make an informed choice on who to vote for.

    Most corporations are publicly traded entities that hide relevant data from the majority of their stock holders.  I have a right to that data to know whether to invest/divest.

    When your govt and legal system has become so corrupt it refuses to enforce basic laws, I view hackers no different than a real journalist when they expose illegal activities.  


    Hey man... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:42:31 AM EST
    if our privacy rights as individuals mean nothing, those that invade our privacy shouldn't get the luxury of privacy or secrecy either.  We have enough different rules different fools.

    I prefer we all get to have some privacy, but ours has already been stripped.  Only a privacy stripping piker would cry when karma strikes back.


    Unfortunately selective privacy seems (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:03:33 AM EST
    to be based on the political positions of the people/organizations involved.

    Look. It has to be all bad or all good if one side has no rules.

    And we do live in interesting times.


    for once (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:47:24 AM EST
    I agree with Jim.

    Just remember, when you rail against the "government" - the "government" is a mythical thing, it's really made up of a whole lot of individuals.  Every federal employee should not be fair game.


    For me, personal information is one thing (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:17:56 PM EST
    and work product produced on the public nickel is another. Personal information should be off limits. With public work product, I think it comes down to a case-by-case analysis - is publishing information truly putting lives in jeopardy, or is that just the govm't excuse for excess secrecy? I think the NYT and pro-publica do a good job of sorting that out. But they would not have gotten all of the information without wikileaks.

    I guess I am just saying...it all depends. I trust myself to know sleezy practices when I see them.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:38:58 PM EST
    I thought some of wikileaks was excessive.  It was just a news dump.  And how do you treat the dumper, who was obviously not concerned with whether the info he was leaking could hurt people.  Sure, we know the nytimes went through it with a fine tooth comb, but I assume they did that because there was so much information that they had too.  Meaning the originally leaked information was not "digested" in any way.

    I really don't see why internal state department memos should be public.  I don't know if that's "excess" secrecy.  It seems to me how any business functions, you need to be able to operate with a certain amount of openess internally without worrying that everything you write might be all over the internet.


    Their personal business... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    I see your point...unless perhaps if they're in our personal business, then payback is a b*tch as they say on the street.

    Government business is all fair game in my opinion...sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we're paying the bills...we own it, we get to see it.


    I had a moment yesterday (none / 0) (#28)
    by sj on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 02:27:48 PM EST
    where I agreed with Abdul whatever so I know how you must be feeling.

    But I disagree with both you and Jim.  Yes it's true that every government employee is also a private citizen.  Their private actions and personal communications should remain private.  Their actions as a public servant, when acting as that public servant should be able to withstand public scrutiny.

    The usual exceptions about not endangering anyone yadda yadda is a given.


    here's the issue as I see it (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 02:54:13 PM EST
    "The usual exceptions about not endangering anyone yadda yadda is a given"

    Who decides what that information is?  The nytimes?  Bradley Manning?  The US government?

    Bradley Manning, IMO, is just some guy.  Personally, I'm not really okay with putting all my trust in some random guy.  The nytimes is unelected, and accountable only to themselves.  And we can't trust the US government to police themselves.

    So I get where the disconnect is, I am not sure how to solve it, I just don't really think that hacking, or a massive classified news dumping is the way to go.


    You know what? (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 08:27:06 PM EST
    I think that line of thought is a complete red herring.  The New York Times is made up of people just as the government "classifiers" are.  One example:  the Bush administrations outing of Valerie Plame.  They knew what they were doing.  There are honest people and nefarious people everywhere.  

    And even honest people will make honest mistakes.  Absolutely no doubt about that.  But life itself is a risk.  We all do what we can to mitigate that risk, but no one can avoid it completely.  An innocent person could get hurt.  No question.  But innocent people are hurt.  All the time.  All. the. time.

    From my perspective, if I or someone I love were injured by honest disclosure of information -- not sensational disclosure, or titillating disclosure or disclosure with evil intent -- it would be be horrible.  Absolutely horrible.  I still believe the risk is a valid price to pay to live and learn and love in an open and free society.

    Bradley Manning wouldn't have done what he did if we lived in one.  But maybe the long term effect will help be to create one.


    sure (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:44:39 AM EST
    but the nytimes doesn't hack information.  They just receive it and print it, there is a difference.

    Does that mean trusting Bradley Manning too?  Or whomever?  To give that information to the nytimes, or an organization that cares?

    I don't think we should be okay with people stealing information.

    And while I do believe that civil disobedience is a valid choice, part of that means you have to be willing to pay the price, and you have to know that what you're fighting for is worth that price.  I fail to see where Manning accomplished anything.


    Who did the stealing? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by sj on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 11:46:04 AM EST
    One could argue that by over-classifying documents, the government is stealing information that should be in the public domain.  Much of the information should never have been classified in the first place.

    I know we won't ever agree on this, so it's my last comment about it.  That's okay, we agree about some other things.


    Hugh Grant! (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    There's a big difference (none / 0) (#27)
    by sj on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 02:20:48 PM EST
    between the private communications/whereabouts of a citizen (no matter how high the profile) and disclosure of what our own government is doing.  The latter is supposed to be accountable to the citizens.  

    I get what Scott and you (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 03:23:59 PM EST

    The question is, at what point should we stop? How about name and addresses of family members of troops on deployment??

    Memos detailing our positions re various negotiations with foreign governments..??

    Again. If the new standard is NO standard then all the fuss over Murdock's minions should cease forthwith.

    You really can't have it both ways.


    let us know when the young (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 03:42:55 PM EST
    hackers set up a global string of information dispensing outlets for the purpose of imposing a narrow, backward-looking, dog-eat-dog agenda. Extenuating circumstances count for something, in other words.

    But you do get the apples-and-oranges-comparison of the day award.


    To my eye (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 03:54:45 PM EST
    I see people wanting Murdock's hide while cheering wikileaks....

    So I guess you think a movie star's privacy is important while classified government documents are not.

    Okay, I get it. It's wrong but I get it.

    And watch out for that slope. It has lots of grease on it.


    if it means the eventual end of (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 04:27:04 PM EST
    "black budgets" as we know it, and instigating overseas coups to install investor-friendly dictatorships, I'll take it.

    The trouble with movie stars privacy is that people in this country care so much about what movie stars do in private..(no thanks, again, to schlock-and-sleaze mavens like Rupert.)


    If there wasn't a market for (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 05:03:56 PM EST
    sleaze then no one would be producing it. Facts are that people are desperately interested in who is doing what with who and when and why.

    And open kimonos are fine as long as every one else is flashing theirs.

    We elect people to do things. One of them is to keep us safe. If we lose faith in them we should replace them but we shouldn't be broadcasting things that can hurt them or us.


    You know as well as I do that (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 05:38:02 PM EST
    all classified data is not created equal. I can't think of one instance where it is excusable to hack into a private person's phone or mail without a warrant. And even that standard is certainly looser than it used to be.

    to be fair (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 03:28:45 PM EST
    if the distinction is "work communication - while working for the government" vs "all private communication", that's not "no standard", and it's not having it both ways.  I may not agree that that's where the standard should be, but it's not hypocritical to have that standard and disagree with what Murdoch is doing.