back to article Pro-Wikileaks hacktivistas in DDoS dustup with patriot contras

Online hacktivist collective Anonymous, operating under the banners Operation:Payback and "Operation Avenge Assange" have launched a series of DDoS attacks against organisations and people seen as being opposed to Wikileaks and its spokesman Julian Assange. Meanwhile, Operation:Payback itself has been subjected to counter-DDoS …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Always happy to hear about Zionist^HSenator Lieberman

    Lieberman is "hinting that Wikileaks' mainstream-media partners, collaborating on trawling and redacting files prior to public release, have violated the law also".

    Would that be the law that the gerontocratic control freak makes up as he goes along?

    T'was all discussed in the 70's and thrown out back then. Well, with the current itch of fascism growing every day, changes may be afoot-

    1. Hooch181

      Amazing how quickly...

      Laws can be changed or perverted...

      1. Eeep !
        FAIL

        Don't you mean

        "changed to pervert" ?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    US "patriotic" contra-hacktivistas.

    nothing new here, except an escalating petty squable.. these would be the same hacktivists who attacked wikileaks leading to the DNS being dropped..

  3. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Lol...

    Posting anonymously because I'm a "charloten"...

    Spellcheck FTW!

  4. Danny 2

    Charlotte Anne

    The speeling of charloten proves this is Anonymous, jumping on a bandwagon to muddy the waters. Assange could do with a bit less Anonymous 'help' and a bit more names like Naomi Wolf stepping up:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    The field of battle is WikiLeaks

    "Incoming!"...

  6. Paul Hatch

    Mastercard is Current Target

    Mastercard's worldwide site is now down.

    Dosing The Anonymous chatroom has little effect.

    Firstly Current target IP address is posted far and wide so any numpty can put the address into LOIC manually. Secondly, The way the botnet is set up, Machines that are on the botnet will continue to hit a target until the central hub switches them off or supplies a new target. Dosing the bot hub merely locks the attack onto its existing target, currently Mastercard.

    1. g e

      Damn

      As if not getting my mastercard payment to wikileaks wasn't irritating enough then now I can't get my donation to the Ku Klux Klan, either...

      Bugger.

      (They also accept the presumably non-zionist visa though... http://www.christianconcepts.net/informat.htm - linked to from the kkk.com site when you click signup)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      They could do better

      They could simply poison the BGP tables and send the 1.1.1.0/24 and 1.2.3.0/24 netblocks towards whatever target they want. That would make every single misconfigured device a DDoS attacker, and oh my! Instant DDoS!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Aust says US to blame

    Australian Foreign Minister and former PM says US to blame for data leaks:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/08/3088461.htm

    This following comments by former PM Howard saying Assange is not "the bad person" in this, and John Pilger having a swipe at current PM Gillard, a former lawyer, for her lazy language and general US-puppetry.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Go

      Kevin Rudd - Not a Complete Tosser

      They can now update his gravestone to say that.

      1. Steve Roper
        Stop

        Yes, KRudd was a complete tosser

        His party, under him, were the ones that pushed the Great Firewall of Australia, remember? Time doesn't heal those wounds - the man was, is and always will be, a fuckwit.

      2. Mark 65

        @Kevin Rudd - Not a Complete Tosser

        It's a fluid situation, I wouldn't update anything until it becomes static.

  8. Elmer Phud
    Alert

    A matter of time?

    "Some context for the online teacup "war" might be provided by the tiny size of the Anonymous volunteer botnet compared to today's heavyweight criminal bot networks. There wasn't even an attempt to actually attack PayPal, just its corporate blog."

    How much does it cost to rent a botnet for a few hours?

    1. Richard 120
      Pirate

      Probably

      an arm and a leg given the people you'll have to deal with.

    2. Big Al
      Pirate

      "How much does it cost to rent a botnet for a few hours?"

      "an average cost of $50 for 24 hours of use (and better deals for “regular customers”)" for the Darkness botnet, according to Shadowserver quoted in El Reg yesterday.

    3. Graham Wilson
      Joke

      Perhaps it'd be free for the right kind of person.

      Perhaps it'd be free for the right kind of person.

      ;-)

  9. david wilson

    Serious?

    If this is the "first serious infowar", at what point are the anonymous lot actually going to do any meaningful damage to a large company?

    And just how long after *that* will it be before some 'warriors' hear a knock on the door from people keen to make examples of them?

    People may well try and deny involvement, but wouldn't their PCs tend to tell a different story?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      Well if they have any sense

      Seven proxies and a server in Pakistan etc..

    2. Paul_Murphy

      That would depend on whether it was their PC

      And not a neighbours wi-fi link,

      or a 'friends' subverted PC,

      or a few library or schools PC's which has been added to the botnet,

      or even - as suggested above, a 'proper' criminal botnet hired for a day or so.

      And when people say DDOS do they just mean that or one of the more interesting mis-uses of TCP/IP (SYN/ACK flooding for instance)?

      ho humm

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @paul murphy

        "That would depend on whether it was their PC

        "And not a neighbours wi-fi link,"

        ""or a 'friends' subverted PC,"

        "or a few library or schools PC's which has been added to the botnet,"

        True

        Though doing some of those things would be illegal in their own right, and/or could have other consequences

        I can't imagine that many normal people would be slow to give up a 'friend' who had kindly subverted their PC and left them potentially facing legal grief

        "Not me officer - maybe you want to talk to [insert ex-friend's name] - he's always going on about being a big-shot cyber-warrior, and he was playing with my PC a couple of days ago!"

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Pirate

      no title for anon :)

      Have a look at Operation Chanology, lashing out at Scientology (big company, check) and disseminating their copyrighted materials (meaningful damage, check).

      From what I see that is a feud that has been going on for years and the Anonymous lot stepping up to the plate did quite some damage to the sect.

      Right now i'm popping some popcorn. If the wikileaks stuff doesn't run into ground soon, there will be lots of lulz to come. I like popcorn while watching entertaining stuff.

      FWIW, I'm AC because I don't need $work to read this, nothing to do with Skiddies from 4chan :)

      1. david wilson

        @AC

        >>"Have a look at Operation Chanology, lashing out at Scientology (big company, check) and disseminating their copyrighted materials (meaningful damage, check)."

        It does seem like Scientology has been on a downward trajectory for a while.

        Not much in the way of new celebrity converts, the existing ones not exactly doing them many favours, etc.

        For all the bits of publicity with masked protests, etc, I'd have thought that the 'They really [pretend to] believe this shit" South Park episode probably had rather more influence.

        Copyrighted Scientology bollocks has been around for ages, and on the internet since the mid-90s.

        4chan started in 2003 and seemed to start their anti-scientology stuff in 2008.

    4. BillG
      Go

      Just a scratch

      I agree - all the anonymous lot is accomplishing is just being an irritant. Nothing permanent is being accomplished, no real damage, nothing lasting.

      But it's a sure bet that ISPs and governments are using these DDOS attacks as a fire drill. Attacking Senator Leiberman's website makes it a federal crime.

      There may already be knocks on the door as governments make examples of these basement-dwellers. As Dave wrote, they may try to deny involvement, but their PCs and also their ISP history will give them away.

      1. david wilson

        @BillG

        >>"But it's a sure bet that ISPs and governments are using these DDOS attacks as a fire drill."

        And also, presumably, as a really good excuse to get more funding for one or other CyberTerrorism task force, or other pet net projects.

      2. morphoyle

        Worse than you think

        Mastercard was unable to process payments as a result. I would say it's a bit more than an irritant at this point. Also, the way the DDOS attack is structured makes it pretty much impossible to determine who is an attacker, and who is trying to legitimately access the site.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @AC

          "Also, the way the DDOS attack is structured makes it pretty much impossible to determine who is an attacker, and who is trying to legitimately access the site."

          And that would still be the case if someone's IP address had been involved in multiple attacks?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Flame

        @BillG

        is that pronounced bilge? It should be.

        "Attacking Senator Leiberman's website makes it a federal crime."

        Not in my country it doesn't. When will you numpties realise that US law != World law ?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @AC

          "Not in my country it doesn't. When will you numpties realise that US law != World law ?"

          Maybe that's why he said 'federal' rather than 'international"?

          I'd assume there are enough kids in America to go after, if the authorities choose, and countries elsewhere can probably find something to do people for, if they feel the desire.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    charlawawa

    fffuuuu...

    It was morning, I and I were on our way out and firefox spellcheck didn't pick it up(??)

    I and I even googled it and didn't get a correction. Morningitus.

    You've got to realise with 1000+ in chat, it gets hectic, hence the occasional.. odd target, as I and I said, everyDNS and Interpol were questionable.

    But I and I care about this issue and need to make some noise to show that people are not happy.

    This prosecution smells rotten and the hostile attitude of PayPal et al. is unjustified and unsavoury.

    I and I am not going to get into a flame war with anyone who doesn't share our views.

    A but not C.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    using patriots

    I wonder if US agencies are encouraging/sponsoring the patriot groups attacking Wikileaks et al - it would seem to be consistent with their approach over the years in many other countries, and its not as though it has ever backfired on them.

    1. g e

      Yeah patriot organisations

      Like the NSA

  12. ShaggyDoggy

    Mr Pedantic

    says it is "literatim" when quoting the written word, "verbatim" is for quoting speech, please get this right in future Reg

    1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Mr Pedantic

      That's slanderous! etc.

      Really, though, imagine the screams of bewilderment if we used 'literatim'. Who uses that?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Coat

      Nope, not in the official Scrabble Players dictionary

      so that isn't a real word.

      1. Richard 120
        Joke

        that isn't a real world?

        oh gods how will I indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis?

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Mr Pedantic: "verbatim" spoken?

    AIUI "verbatim" means "word for word" and "literatim" means "letter for letter". So "verbatim" can mean the spoken or the written word.

  14. The main man
    Thumb Down

    These guys are no angels

    I agree with Youngs assesment of the situation: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/cryptome_on_wikileaks/ They completely sold out Manning and the others to further their own interests. And Assange is no angel as well. His public persona is very different from his private

    1. veskebjorn

      Certainly not angels, but not demons, either

      Mr. Young's remarks, as reported by The Register, were unhelpful to this reader. The piece showed that Mr. Young abhors WikiLeaks, but it does not posit any mechanisms by which WikiLeaks has "sold out" Mr. (Private? Specialist?) Manning or anyone else. So far as this reader can determine, Mr. Manning's difficulties arose from a U.S. government investigation into his activities, and this investigation was not aided by WikiLeaks, not even inadvertently. Also, this reader seems to recall that Mr. Manning long ago acknowledged his involvement in providing at least some of the WikiLeaks material.

      If there is plausible evidence to the contrary, some small part of the world wants to hear it. But also, as Bruce Springsteen once explained: "Let the broken hearts stand as the price you've gotta pay. We'll keep pushin' till it's understood, and these badlands start treating us good."

      Mr. Assange is not an angel. Neither is he a devil. No human can be either. His career strikes this reader as one of a sensible and passionate man. (Warning!: This is an actual IT angle. He apparently also has been a competent programmer.) Mr. Assange seems to have tried to do the right thing, but he may have finally succumbed to the adulatory fictions created by various media and political groups.

      The Reverend Martin Luther King, the most effective leader of the Christian movement which at least temporarily destroyed the legal underpinnings of U.S. apartheid--even Martin Luther King had a problem with the ladies. He liked them; they liked him. The number of his consensual sexual encounters with women who were not his wife may exceed 100.

      By King's standard, Assange is practically a eunuch.;

    2. morphoyle

      wrong

      Manning was the idiot that bragged about his accomplishments to a fellow hacker. If he had kept his mouth shut, he wouldn't be in this mess.

  15. Danny 2

    Angels of death

    Put it in context, Wikileaks showed the video of US Chopper pilots executing civilians. Those pilots are unpunished, probably promoted, while Assange is spending a week in prison without being charged with any crime.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Danny 2

      "Wikileaks showed the video of US Chopper pilots executing civilians."

      And lots of other media organisations also showed it.

      If Assange/Wikileaks had never existed, the video could easily have been leaked to any number of willing news outlets.

      Even if some US ones *might* have been wary of touching it until it was made more public domain by being shown elsewhere, there'd have been plenty of overseas news agencies happy to take it.

      Wikileaks doesn't actually deserve much of the credit if they didn't take many of the risks.

      If someone, at significant personal risk, gave a story to newspaper X or TV station Y, it's that person that deserves the credit much more than someone who just happened to be the first media outlet they contacted.

      Assuming Bradley Manning is the source of all the current stuff, I'm assuming that no-one from Wikileaks actually *encouraged* him to give away as much as he did, making it much harder for him to claim he was being a noble whistleblower?

  16. Mike Moyle
    Grenade

    So, am I the only one...

    ...who finds the idea of a bunch of doofs going by the name "Anonymous" organizing in favor of openness and transparency just too funny for words?

    "Openness for the masses (just not from us)!"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      not all secrets are bad

      Mike, that's retarded. These people could face prison if they were open about their identities. Anonymous isn't even just about hiding your identity, it's about not HAVING an identity, it's about being a human, a part of humanity and a part of a collective force for good... sometimes. It's about humility. People using names and looking to take credit are actively ridiculed.

      Just look at this "coldblooded" guy going around telling news outlets that he represents Anonymous, he also said Twitter was a target, complete b/s, he's either a troll or an idiot.

      If you think Anonymous should be more open, you could argue that Wikileaks should leak details of their sources, that sounds fucking perfectly logical doesn't it? It's not as if Anonymous is being coy about actions, intentions, repercussions or reasons. It doesn't matter that identity is hidden, this is for safety, it's not like terrorists are being released from prison for economic reasons, it's not like innocent people are being thrown in torture camps or shot or arrested on flimsy accusations from a man-hater rumoured to be linked to the CIA and another Women who has probably been coached and coerced by said feminazi.

      The collateral damage of these attacks so far amount to people maybe having trouble processing transactions but Anonymous is not even trying to cover up this fact. U.S. Military kill civilians? Never happened.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC

        >>"or arrested on flimsy accusations from a man-hater rumoured to be linked to the CIA and another Women who has probably been coached and coerced by said feminazi."

        Well, we wouldn't want people going round making up flimsy accusations, would we?

        Like someone prejudging a case and assuming that people they know next to nothing about are making up claims of assault just because those claims are against someone they like.

        Someone smart wouldn't ignore the possibility that the accusations were incorrect, while avoiding jumping to the conclusion that they simply *must* be, just because that's the answer they most want to be true.

        >>"U.S. Military kill civilians? Never happened."

        Sure.

        The evil mainstream media never report on civilian deaths.

        Except all the times when they do, of course, which go back long before Wikileaks started.

        Manning could have given *carefully selected* leaks to regular news outlets and got perfectly good coverage of the information, and would maybe be in a rather better position now.

        And how much has Assange actually given to help defend the heroic whistleblower out of the contributions Wikileaks solicited?

        So far, the answer seems to be 'nothing'

        Though obviously, since Saint Julian is infallible, that must all be someone else's fault as well.

    2. LionelB Silver badge

      No you're not the only one

      ... you're number 186,990 at last count. Hilarious.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    From the abc.net link posted by AC

    "The issue is whether any of this material and the publication of it will endanger people's lives or endanger individual countries."

    They forgot about about endangering corrupt politicians.....

  18. Celtic Ferret
    Happy

    Required information

    What inquiring minds really need to know from WikiLeaks is the precise brand of prophylactic that failed; sort of a "Consumer Reports" function.

  19. K. Adams
    Coat

    Flashback to the '70s.

    Disclaimer: This post is not intended to either defend or persecute WikiLeaks or Julian Assange.

    There's just two words I'd like to make here, with all the blathering about Assange's, WikiLeaks', and/or Mass Media's supposed guilt or innocence:

    -- Pentagon Papers

    What's that? Never heard of 'em? Well, to hear the way our politicians, news anchors, and other pundits go on about things, neither have they.

    So I'll provide a quick recap, for the uninitiated:

    A long time ago (1969), in a political climate pretty similar to today, a dude by the name of Daniel Ellsberg copied a 4,100 page document (small by WikiLeaks' standards, but I digress) called

    -- "United States–Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense"

    while working at the RAND Corporation, a non-profit think-tank with high-level FedGov connections.

    After sitting on the study for a while, Ellsberg contacted Neil Sheehan, a reporter at the New York Times, and handed over the kit in February 1971. The NYT tossed the issue around internally for a spell, debating the legal ramifications of publishing the info, then started printing excerpts on June 13, 1971.

    President Nixon was rather nonplussed, since the incidents described in the study occurred during the terms of his predecessors, but his Advisors and Cabinet weren't so laissez-faire. After Kissinger convinced Nixon to change his stance, Attorney General Mitchell used the Espionage Act of 1917 to obtain an injunction against the publication of further excerpts by the New York Times. The NYT appealed, and the case quickly climbed the judicial ladder and landed itself in front of the US Supreme Court:

    -- New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713)

    The Supreme Court ruled in the New York Times' favour, saying that material provided in the Public Interest to a news organisation cannot be censored by Prior Restraint.

    A quick comparison of the legal ramifications of Cablegate (Now) and the Pentagon Papers affair (Then) provides the upshot to all this: In the United States, at least, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and the news organisations working with them are legally in the clear. By legal precedent of the United States' highest Court, the barriers against pre-publication censorship are very tall indeed, and the Government needs the mother of all ladders to climb over them.

    It was a landmark case, and was a foundation of the United States' Freedom of the Press.

    So what's the problem, you ask? Simple:

    *** In all of the news coverage being bandied about by the talking heads on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, BBC News, C-SPAN, and other 24-hour news outlets, about the whole WikiLeaks thing, I haven't heard a SINGLE anchor or politician mention the Pentagon Papers and its subsequent legal precedent. ***

    Amazing.

    Some people say, "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it." I disagree. The saying really should be, "Those who do study history are doomed to ignore it."

    Love to stay and talk more, but I gotta grab my coat, and head out to teach a History class...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Heart

      <3

      I love you. That is all.

    2. Mike Moyle
      FAIL

      Big difference...

      "Those who do study history are doomed to ignore it."

      Indeed.

      Daniel Ellsberg first approached the Nixon Administration and members of the Senate who wouldn't touch the Papers before he went to the Times. Afterwards, he took responsibility for what he did and surrendered himself to the authorities for trial.

      He did what he did and accepted the likelihood of serious consequences for doing so.

      THIS is why he's considered a hero. He walked the walk.

      So far, Assange, et al, are only talking the talk.

      1. K. Adams
        Headmaster

        Apples and Oranges

        "THIS is why he's [Daniel Ellsberg] considered a hero. He walked the walk.

        So far, Assange, et al, are only talking the talk."

        That doesn't hold, because you're comparing apples and oranges.

        **Semantically**, Daniel Ellsberg equates to Bradley Manning. Julian Assange equates to the New York Times.

        In the Pentagon Papers affair, Ellsberg is the one who obtained access to the documents, the same way that Manning obtained access to the diplomatic comms in Cablegate. By the same token, Ellsberg **gave** the papers to the NYT, the same way that Manning **gave** the cables to WikiLeaks.

        My comments are related to legal precedent regarding a journalist's right and privilege to publish material provided to them in the Public Interest, not as to whether a crime was committed by the person who (allegedly wrongfully) provided the materials to the journalist in the first place.

        WikiLeaks is most certainly, by modern definition, a publisher of journalistic information. And Bradley Manning IS considered by some to be a Hero.

    3. david wilson

      @K. Adams

      >>"Some people say, "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it." I disagree. The saying really should be, "Those who do study history are doomed to ignore it.""

      I think Aldous Huxley probably got it right:

      "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach."

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Ah, patriotism...

    ...the last refuge of a scoundrel...

  21. TeeCee Gold badge
    FAIL

    "..a 13 year old basement dweller surrounded by crusty socks...."

    What? Like the anonymous (hah!) one whose "fire up the LOIC" alarm went off an hour late, probably due to the iPhone daylight savings debacle?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/01/riaa_anon_ddos/

    1. charloten
      Black Helicopters

      i'm 12 actually

      No you moron. Anonymous is a shifting collective. Kids use the badge for stupid things, that doesn't mean they are the same Anonymous behind this. No one cared that much about the RIAA because there was no immediate threat. This current operation has recruited from far and wide, all ages and walks of life. This is about truth and justice. We have had enough of the killing of civilians, false imprisonment, funding of terrorist organisations by governments who claim to be fighting a war on terror.

      Those of us with two brain cells to rub together have always known this shit happened, but enough is enough. Wikileaks gave us evidence, proof even. We have seen the light, the door has been opened just a crack. We won't let them close it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @charloten

        ""This is is about truth and justice. We have had enough of the killing of civilians, false imprisonment, funding of terrorist organisations by governments who claim to be fighting a war on terror."

        It isn't news to most people (or at least, to most adults) that nasty things are likely to happen in wars even if they're well-conducted, and more so if they're not. That's one reason why many people think war should be a last resort.

        ""Those of us with two brain cells to rub together have always known this shit happened, but enough is enough. Wikileaks gave us evidence, proof even."

        So the /brainy/ people (like you) always knew it happened, but still had to wait for proof before deciding to do something?

        Before Wikileaks, you really didn't see any evidence that one government's freedom fighters were another government's terrorists?

        You didn't see any evidence that civilians get killed in wars, or in counterinsurgency/counterterrorism operations?

        Where did you get your news before Wikileaks - the Disney Channel?

        Do you think DDoSing sites will actually impress grown-ups and make people more likely to decide that war is bad?

      2. BillG
        Go

        @charloten

        >This is about truth and justice. We have had enough of the >killing of civilians, false imprisonment, funding of terrorist >organisations by governments who claim to be fighting a war >on terror.

        > Wikileaks gave us evidence, proof even.

        "Funding of terrorist organizations by governments who claim to be fighting a war on terror"? If you mean Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, that's very, very old news.

        @charloten, help me understand. You write like you've read the Wikileaks documents?

        O.K., then point out to us the Wikileaks sections (not someone's commentary) that PROVE the DELIBERATE "killing of civilians, false imprisonment".

  22. JaitcH
    FAIL

    Just a Pentagon War Game to check out their new toys.

    Within weeks of forming a 'cyber war' group, the Pentagon is likely working overtime to check out it's tactics for the next U.S. inspired go-around.

    Sort of proves they have a lot to learn, yet, as they have with keeping their secrets locked down.

  23. 0238710

    Hactavists related to Hactivismo?

    I've heard a lot of talk around the office today about who these guys are. Some co-workers have the idea of Hactivismo and their fight for freedom of information floating around however I am willing to bet my computer, vital parts of my anatomy for reproductive purposes, and even life itself that it is not related to Cult of the Dead Cow. CDC is more concerned with bringing a good name to the term hacker as it was before the so called "Hacker war" of the 1980's. (More or less that was an invasion of privacy between different parts of Legion Of Doom.) Further more Cult of The Dead Cow has testified before congress concerning major security flaws in the US's infrastructure. If Cult of the Dead Cow wanted to wage war against a company they would not make it publicly visible. Your looking at something more juvenile like the group "anonymous". Before you jump to the conclusion that Hactivismo has something to do with these attacks think again CDC members are pros not cons.

  24. bugalugs

    Unfortunately

    Anon may be playing right into the hands of certain w*anking interests whose private communications are said to be the subject of the next lot of leaks.

    * insert letter of choice between a and c

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like