"‘Anonymous’ hackers target US security think tank" December 25, 2011|Cassandra Vinograd and Ramit Plushnick-Masti, Associated Press
The loose-knit hacking movement “Anonymous’’ claimed Sunday to have stolen thousands of credit card numbers and other personal information belonging to clients of U.S.-based security think tank Stratfor. One hacker said the goal was to pilfer funds from individuals’ accounts to give away as Christmas donations, and some victims confirmed unauthorized transactions linked to their credit cards.
Isn't there something just a bit ironic there? Stratfor doesn't have stronger defenses?
Anonymous boasted of stealing Stratfor’s confidential client list, which includes entities ranging from Apple Inc. to the U.S. Air Force to the Miami Police Department, and mining it for more than 4,000 credit card numbers, passwords and home addresses.
Austin, Texas-based Stratfor provides political, economic and military analysis to help clients reduce risk, according to a description on its YouTube page. It charges subscribers for its reports and analysis, delivered through the web, emails and videos. The company’s main website was down, with a banner saying the “site is currently undergoing maintenance.’’
Proprietary information about the companies and government agencies that subscribe to Stratfor’s newsletters did not appear to be at any significant risk, however, with the main threat posed to individual employees who had subscribed.
“Not so private and secret anymore?’’ Anonymous taunted in a message on Twitter, promising that the attack on Stratfor was just the beginning of a Christmas-inspired assault on a long list of targets.
Anonymous said the client list it had already posted was a small slice of the 200 gigabytes worth of plunder it stole from Stratfor and promised more leaks. It said it was able to get the credit card details in part because Stratfor didn’t bother encrypting them — an easy-to-avoid blunder which, if true, would be a major embarrassment for any security-related company....
Hours after publishing what it claimed was Stratfor’s client list, Anonymous tweeted a link to encrypted files online with names, phone numbers, emails, addresses and credit card account details.
“Not as many as you expected? Worry not, fellow pirates and robin hoods. These are just the `A’s,’’ read a message posted online that encouraged readers to download a file of the hacked information....
It's a TRAP!!
--more--"
Related:
Anonymous Shuts Down Corporate and Government Websites Worldwide … The Timing Couldn’t Be Worse
"Thereby handing the US a justification for a crackdown on the internet, and proving to the less-insightful that anonymous was siding with the cyber-criminals all along (as well as Cass Sunstein)." -- Wake the Flock Up
I agree.
Also see: Would the US government attack its own websites and then blame "Anonymous" for the attacks?
No, the U.S. government would never do that.
"Amid recent protest, US already able to shut websites; Internet protest was silent in 2008" by Hiawatha Bray | Globe Staff, January 23, 2012
Google, Wikipedia, and the millions of Americans who joined last week’s protest against giving the government new authority over the Internet may have missed something: Federal agencies already have that kind of power, at least over websites registered in the United States.
Related: Bloggers Have Hand
Which is why government wants to cut them off.
Under a 2008 law called the Pro-IP Act, federal authorities can seize the assets of a company charged with copyright violations. The Justice Department exercised that muscle on Thursday, when it shut down one of the Internet’s most popular file-sharing sites: Megaupload.com, accused of distributing illegal copies of music, movies, and books.
A company’s assets include its Internet address, or domain name. Under the Pro-IP Act, the government can seize that domain name from organizations that violate copyrights as long as the online address ends in .com, .org, or .net. Those addresses are issued by a registry based in the United States and are subject to US law.
Although the Pro-IP Act was a major expansion of the government’s power to regulate the Internet, opposition was muted at the time it was passed.
“I think there was generally just less attention to these issues of Internet freedom,’’ Sanchez said.
He said he believes it would be a different story if the law were put up for a vote today. One reason is the fallout from last year’s “Arab Spring’’ protests. Reports that embattled Middle Eastern regimes tried to cut off Internet access within their countries alarmed Americans who wouldn’t want their own government to have such power.
“The public was much more sensitized by all of these events,’’ Sanchez said.
Another factor, said Sanchez, was the rise of social networking services like Twitter and Facebook, which are used by twice as many Americans now than in 2008, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project. The social networks made it much easier to quickly organize opposition to additional Internet regulations, Sanchez said.
Millions of Internet users may have participated in last week’s massive online demonstration, in which numerous websites, including Wikipedia, blacked out their pages, while sites like the search service Google posted protest messages.
The action was held in opposition to the Stop Online Privacy Act, under consideration in the House of Representatives, and its Senate counterpart, the Protect Intellectual Property Act. The two bills would force Internet service providers and search engines to block access to foreign websites that offer illicit files.
The furious opposition generated by the protest, which unleashed a flood of calls to congressional offices, prompted congressional supporters to delay indefinitely votes that would move the bills forward.
Critics said the proposed bills would give the government extraordinary power to censor Internet communication, similar to tactics used in authoritarian countries like China and Iran.
Related: Googling China
Your government is worse than theirs, American.
Yet the 2008 Pro-IP Act already lets the US government shut down websites accused of breaking copyright law, like Megaupload.
Even though Megaupload.com is based in Hong Kong, the company operated hundreds of computer servers on US soil and it had a US-issued .com address. That gave the Justice Department the opening it needed to crack down on the company.
According to the federal indictment, Megaupload and seven of its executives raked in $175 million by distributing illegally copied digital files, costing copyright holders more than half a billion dollars in lost revenues.
“They structured their business model to attract and profit from illegal activities,’’ said Kevin Suh, senior vice president of Internet content protection at the Hollywood trade group Motion Picture Association of America in Sherman Oaks, Calif., a proponent of the bills targeted by the Web protest.
“If this service were hosted and operated, for example, in a foreign country, our government would be essentially powerless to do anything about it,’’ said Cary Sherman, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, also a supporter of the two bills, in a statement celebrating the Megaupload shutdown. “That needs to change.’’
To hell with Hollywood!
There are many Internet domain name registries based outside the US. The world’s nations each have their own domains - .ru for Russia, for example. American agencies have no legal authority to confiscate a .ru domain name.
The protested bills would have let the government order American Internet companies to block US users’ access to foreign sites offering illegal materials. Because so many major file-swapping sites are based outside the United States, the recording and movie industries strongly supported the legislation.
But Cato’s Sanchez argued that the Pro-IP Act already gives the government too much power. Megaupload is probably in violation of US copyright laws, he said, but closing the site before it’s been found guilty in court sets an unhealthy precedent.
That's freedom?
“Our constitutional tradition has always rejected the idea of shutting down speech before someone is convicted of a crime,’’ Sanchez said.
Don't bother the AmeriKan government with the Constitution, will ya?
--more--"