LulzSec, Anonymous to FBI: Stuff it

The LulzSec folks have been very prolific on Twitter since emerging from their brief retirement.

Last night they were making a lot of noise about something they were up to, though, to be honest, I couldn't get a clear picture of what they were up to from the tweets alone. They had some links, but I wasn't about to click on those.

But it had something to do with a certain pop star people like to hate these days:

Justin Bieber is wasting his time tweeting all that nonsense. He could be directing a mass botnet of little girls.

Trust us, if we're ever in Justin Bieber's twitter - we have no plans - there will be hordes of little girls scarred to death from goatse.

For anyone that doesn't know what goatse is, check it out here, it's really eye-opening: (link removed) hopefully it won't crash...

A special shout-out to anyone that opened the goatse link while sitting near their families, bonus points for grandparents. See you around!

During this morning's browsing I came across a new barrage, this one against the FBI:

This is a joint statement from #Anonymous (@AnonymousIRC) and Lulz Security (@LulzSec) to the FBI (@FBIPressOffice) - pastebin.com/RA15ix7S

Arresting people won't stop us, FBI. We will only cease fire when you all wear shoes on your heads. That's the only way this is ending.

The open letter LulzSec and Anonymous sent the FBI in response to recent arrests is actually quit interesting. Let me show it to you in full, then I'll offer a thought or two:

Hello thar FBI and international law authorities,

We recently stumbled across the following article with amazement and a certain amount of amusement:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138555799/fbi-arrests-alleged-anonymous-hackers

The statements made by deputy assistant FBI director Steve Chabinsky in this article clearly seem to be directed at Anonymous and Lulz Security, and we are happy to provide you with a response.

You state:

"We want to send a message that chaos on the Internet is unacceptable,[even if] hackers can be believed to have social causes, it's entirely unacceptable to break into websites and commit unlawful acts."

Now let us be clear here, Mr. Chabinsky, while we understand that you and your colleagues may find breaking into websites unacceptable, let us tell you what WE find unacceptable:

* Governments lying to their citizens and inducing fear and terror to keep them in control by dismantling their freedom piece by piece.

* Corporations aiding and conspiring with said governments while taking advantage at the same time by collecting billions of funds for federal contracts we all know they can't fulfil.

* Lobby conglomerates who only follow their agenda to push the profits higher, while at the same time being deeply involved in governments around the world with the only goal to infiltrate and corrupt them enough so the status quo will never change.

These governments and corporations are our enemy. And we will continue to fight them, with all methods we have at our disposal, and that certainly includes breaking into their websites and exposing their lies.

We are not scared any more. Your threats to arrest us are meaningless to us as you cannot arrest an idea. Any attempt to do so will make your citizens more angry until they will roar in one gigantic choir. It is our mission to help these people and there is nothing - absolutely nothing - you can possibly to do make us stop.

"The Internet has become so important to so many people that we have to ensure that the World Wide Web does not become the Wild Wild West."

Let me ask you, good sir, when was the Internet not the Wild Wild West? Do you really believe you were in control of it at any point? You were not.

That does not mean that everyone behaves like an outlaw. You see, most people do not behave like bandits if they have no reason to. We become bandits on the Internet because you have forced our hand. The Anonymous bitchslap rings through your ears like hacktivism movements of the 90s.

We're back - and we're not going anywhere. Expect us. not going anywhere. Expect us.

This might strike some of you as odd, given my recent posts about these groups: I agree with them on the three things they find unacceptable.

I especially agree when they say governments are using the terrorist threat to scare people into handing over the precious freedoms many of our ancestors shed blood to secure for us.

But it remains the tactics I disagree with: The fact that all of this is done anonymously with a lot of unfair collateral damage.

I know what some of you are thinking: How do you launch a successful revolution out in the open, where those doing the fighting can be easily identified and pursued?

My answer is that if you look at history, you usually see the face of the leadership. While a lot of operatives were anonymous, the leadership always showed itself: George Washington and other Founding Fathers during the American Revolution remain the best example.

I also remain at odds with these groups over the collateral damage. Sure, it's good to expose companies and governments that oppress people or fail to get security right. But when you spill the personal information of innocents, who are you really sticking it to?

When people have to spend large amounts of time cleaning up the damage they did not deserve -- because they had the misfortune of doing business with incompetent and/or dishonest corporations they trusted -- you are just oppressing them in a different way.

Food for thought, anyway.

I'm not angry, as some of the Anonymous members suggested to me in tweets after the "Whatever, LulzSec" post.

I just have an opinion on what works and what doesn't. I don't think these tactics will work.

--Bill Brenner

one-stop view of latest business threats. We created it for you! Bookmark it! Use it!

CSO's Daily Dashboard gives you a

Recommended
Join the discussion
Be the first to comment on this article. Our Commenting Policies