Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lulz Security have been hacking many websites recently and are responsible for the PSN outage. One of the members was caught in his room, in Essex, England, hacking websites such as the CIA, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. More can be found on pretty much any news site.

Links or it didnt happen!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13879678

Can't be arsed copy and pasting right now, but doesn't mention Lulzsec.

Managed to find this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8589078/Hackers-steal-entire-2011-census.html

It mentions Lulzsec.

johnscott10 wrote:Managed to find this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8589078/Hackers-steal-entire-2011-census.html

It mentions Lulzsec.

First, he's alleged to be a member; second, it's a day older than the BBC article.

Im on my ipod atm, it was in the newspapers. Will post link!

At least he was doing it for the lulz.

Seems like karma has a sense of lulz.







Anybody?

After Lulzsec's attack on various gaming sites, it seems the gaming news sites have a better interest in this story.

Certainly more info anyways.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/308397/news/suspected-lulzsec-mastermind-arrested-in-essex/

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/308418/news/lulzsec-suspect-linked-to-psn-hack/

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/308420/news/arrested-lulzsec-suspect-is-ex-anonymous-member/

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/308709/news/suspected-lulzsec-hacker-charged-by-police/

I think Lulzsec posted on their twitter that the person who was arrested was at best mildly associated with them:

"Clearly the UK police are so desperate to catch us that they've gone and arrested someone who is, at best, mildly associated with us. Lame."

"Ryan Cleary is not part of LulzSec; we house one of our many legitimate chatrooms on his IRC server, but that's it."

"Seems the glorious leader of LulzSec got arrested, it's all over now... wait... we're all still here! Which poor bastard did they take down?"

Toastedandy wrote:I think Lulzsec posted on their twitter that the person who was arrested was at best mildly associated with them:

"Clearly the UK police are so desperate to catch us that they've gone and arrested someone who is, at best, mildly associated with us. Lame."

"Ryan Cleary is not part of LulzSec; we house one of our many legitimate chatrooms on his IRC server, but that's it."

"Seems the glorious leader of LulzSec got arrested, it's all over now... wait... we're all still here! Which poor bastard did they take down?"

How odd. You'd think that they'd admit that he was one of them, thus condemning him by providing ammunition against him in court. But this proves he's not a member.

Apparently he was the leader but members are just saying that he is not.

"Clearly the UK police are so desperate to catch us that they've gone and arrested someone who is, at best, mildly associated with us. Lame."

This was posted on the internet, so it really means:

"They caught one of us but now we're gonna lie and say we don't know him so we can still pretend to be 1337"

Certainly people of such impeccable character are incapable of telling lies on the interwebz.

Where will this debauchery end now that they opened the floodgates? People pressing the "I am over 18" button when, in fact, they are not over 18? Males pretending to be females online? Truly we lived in a golden age before the fall brought upon us by this wretched stain.

What are you talking about?

Monster Rain wrote:What are you talking about?

He was being sarcastic.

With good reason, some people on here are acting as if the fact that people lie on the internet is some shocking revelation.

Necros wrote:"Clearly the UK police are so desperate to catch us that they've gone and arrested someone who is, at best, mildly associated with us. Lame."

This was posted on the internet, so it really means:

"They caught one of us but now we're gonna lie and say we don't know him so we can still pretend to be 1337"

/thread

Goliath wrote:With good reason, some people on here are acting as if the fact that people lie on the internet is some shocking revelation.

I think the general consensus was that the lulzsec people were lying.

I don't imagine that this was based on incredulity at the idea of people not being truthful on the internet.

Nope, re-read the thread several times, can't find anyone who shows any signs of shock at the idea of someone lying on the internet.

In fact, the only person who doesn't outright refute their statements is Toastedandy, and that's just because he posted them without commenting on whether he believed them.

I think Ahtman was making a funny. It made me smile, certainly.

Goliath wrote:With good reason, some people on here are acting as if the fact that people lie on the internet is some shocking revelation.

I dont think anyone is, I only posted them with no comment because I thought it was relevant.

htj wrote:In fact, the only person who doesn't outright refute their statements is Toastedandy, and that's just because he posted them without commenting on whether he believed them.

Hooray for htj! I'm always a little bit happy when people read with out jumping to conclusions instantly.

Do they still Draw and Quarter people in the UK, by any chance?

Sasori wrote:Do they still Draw and Quarter people in the UK, by any chance?

As far as I know yeah, but he is getting extradited to the USA, then probably off to Guantanamo bay

Toastedandy wrote:

Sasori wrote:Do they still Draw and Quarter people in the UK, by any chance?

As far as I know yeah, but he is getting extradited to the USA, then probably off to Guantanamo bay

At least he'll be in or near the Caribbean where its nice and sunny, oh wait, that's bad for people who stay on the computer all day...

Zn wrote:Apparently he was the leader but members are just saying that he is not.

With hacktivist groups who can say who is a or is not a member? Its similar to Al Quaeda in this respect, anyone fighting for Al Quaedas cause can claim to be a member irregardless of who they met or didnt meet. I doubt these groups have any actual power to qualify who is a member, as anyone can do things in their name or even take over a movement for their own ends. It appears to have happened with Anonymous after all.

Orlanth wrote:
With hacktivist groups who can say who is a or is not a member?

Anyone and everyone. Group membership only exists by way of social convention. David Cameron is the UK PM because everyone (especially those with power) acknowledges him as such, not because of some inherent characteristic of David Cameron.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
With hacktivist groups who can say who is a or is not a member?

Anyone and everyone. Group membership only exists by way of social convention. David Cameron is the UK PM because everyone (especially those with power) acknowledges him as such, not because of some inherent characteristic of David Cameron.

Logical, but in the case of a politician there are forms to address to attain a status. Whether a politician wins an election outright or has to form a deal with other parties to attain rank it is still according to a common form. What of groups of people/organisations that have no set form, especially those on the internet which can involve immense amount of networking with no physical presence or method of verifying membership or identity.

Can I assume you are saying that if someone agrees someone is a member of a hactivist group on the light of similar activities, they effectively are?

Heres one to think about: If the press call an arrested hactivist working on similar activities to a group under the media spotlight members of the group, they are?

This is why we can't have nice things.

Orlanth wrote:
Can I assume you are saying that if someone agrees someone is a member of a hactivist group on the light of similar activities, they effectively are?

Not necessarily. What I'm saying is that what is meant by group membership is defined by the usage of the concept in a particular situation. For example, in the US (and really the West in general) Al-Qaeda is often used as a euphemism for "terrorist" rather than as a reference to that particular organization.

Orlanth wrote:
Heres one to think about: If the press call an arrested hactivist working on similar activities to a group under the media spotlight members of the group, they are?

From the perspective of anyone who trusts the newspaper, or at least has a similar understanding of of group membership, yes. In general identity has more to do with utility than any sort intrinsic characteristic set.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Can I assume you are saying that if someone agrees someone is a member of a hactivist group on the light of similar activities, they effectively are?

Not necessarily. What I'm saying is that what is meant by group membership is defined by the usage of the concept in a particular situation. For example, in the US (and really the West in general) Al-Qaeda is often used as a euphemism for "terrorist" rather than as a reference to that particular organization.

I use the same example often enough. Colloquailly speaking I consider Al-Quadea to be a quasi-verb, Al Quada is not really an organisation any more but an activity, if someone if enacting terrorism on a similar ideological framework then they are doing Al Quaeda's work, irregardless of who they actually are, so in a way they are 'AL-Quaedaing. Al Quaeda make no attempt to deny reponsibility for atrocities carried out by outsiders in its name.'

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Heres one to think about: If the press call an arrested hactivist working on similar activities to a group under the media spotlight members of the group, they are?

From the perspective of anyone who trusts the newspaper, or at least has a similar understanding of of group membership, yes. In general identity has more to do with utility than any sort intrinsic characteristic set.

Yep, so with internet 'organisations' this flexibility can and does lead to amophic presence. While this does mean an movement can be hard to kill it also means its hard to direct. Anonymous' 'mission creep' away from anti-Scientology actions is evident of that. Anyone can get anonymous to do anything, and so long as it is not completely diametrically against the perceived mentality of the organisation it will be impossible to detect where a mission objective is sourced. As that movement in particular is well beyond the scope of its founders to control it begs the question if others with greater reach could hijack the movement for other ends. Perhaps this has already happened, the real question then is would an agenda hijacked Anonymous by a fake or the real thing? With no central control or organisation but with leaderaship and direction who is to say the orignal inspiration for direction is any more authentic than any other.