FBI Issues Warrants Over “Anonymous” Cyber Attacks

By on January 29, 2011 in News 20

Will “I did it for the lulz” hold up in court? Fox News reports:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation refused to elaborate Friday on the status of more than 40 search warrants the agency issued throughout the United States on Thursday, as part of an ongoing investigation into recent coordinated cyber attacks against major companies and organizations.

An FBI spokesman refused to tell FoxNews.com whether arrests had been made or were expected, instead referring all questions back to a press release the agency issued late Thursday announcing the warrants.

The FBI also said that the United Kingdom’s Metropolitan Police Service had executed search warrants that had resulted in five arrests. The suspects in custody are identified as young men from the central and souther England area, and range in age from 15 to 26.

Targeted suspects are members of a group called “Anonymous,” which coordinated cyber attacks against companies like PayPal, Visa and MasterCard after the companies had dropped support for WikiLeaks. “The FBI is working closely with its international law enforcement partners and others to mitigate these threats,” said the agency in a statement. England, France, Germany and the Netherlands are also participating in similar investigations in their own countries…

[continues at Fox News]

, , , , , , ,

  • Simiantongue

    Corporations openly take action against wikileaks at the behest of the government, which they have no right to do BTW. People retaliate against corporations. Government takes action against people. Hmmm… I see a pattern emerging here. *Gets popcorn*

  • Simiantongue

    Corporations openly take action against wikileaks at the behest of the government, which they have no right to do BTW. People retaliate against corporations. Government takes action against people. Hmmm… I see a pattern emerging here. *Gets popcorn*

    • WhiteRose

      A corporation can choose to do business with you or not… that’s why there are multiple companies that offer the same service :) wikileaks is an option not a right…there are plenty of legal routes to reveal corruption. All wikileaks does is allow the bad guys time to cover up their mess.

      • Hadrian999

        how do you propose to legally access and publish evidence of corruption when the ruling class makes sure the corrupt actions and linked information is classified?

      • Simiantongue

        What the banks, Paypal et al did was more egregious than a simply a chioce of free association. They enacted sanctions against Wikileaks. You are either unaware of what they did exactly, or are being disingenuous.

        Corporations are there to provide a needed service to the public in general and those involved have the right to make something while providing that service. The corporation is not an end unto itself, there just to make a few rich beyond avarice at the cost to the many. A corporation exists at the behest of and to provide for the public needed service and there are public accommodation laws to that effect. But the bottom line is that as far as corporations are concerned no they cannot deny service without very good reasons. Especially where there are economic and other considerations at stake. I have yet to see any evidence provided they did what they did in the name of public service as far as Wikileaks was concerned. Unless you count the authoritative dictates handed down from specific government entities as sufficient reason for sanctions against Wikileaks without cause. Wikileaks was breaking no laws after all.

        In the United States Wikileaks does in fact function under the same rights as any other journalistic outlet. What I think sticks in some people craw is the fact that Wikileaks, unlike the mainstream media seems to be outside the establishment processes(read here somewhat beyond the establishments ability to control information flow as of yet). In mainstream media when talking heads say things that the establishment doesn’t like there is the possibility of consequences for that. For instance some news commentator going what is considered “too far”, then their career will suffer as a result. Not so with Wikileaks. That is in fact what the government reaction to Wikileaks is about after all. Coming to terms with an organization that seems beyond (for the moment) establishment control. Even going beyond what is legal and actually moral in order to show that “no matter what” there will be consequences. Anything beyond the control of authority is considered a “threat” to authority. Anything deemed a threat by or to Authority is always more or less successfully opposed by that Authority; and that this is so largely because of the vastly greater resources which can be brought systematically to bear on the issue in question. This imbalance goes to the heart of the nature and exercise of power and becomes acute where matters of deep politics are involved. They will use whatever means they have legal or illegal, moral or immoral because the ends to preserving the authority is seen as the highest priority.

        • Simiantongue

          In addition it find it ironic that corporations and the US government continually step outside what is legal and moral to act against Wikileaks to try and stop the information that WIkileaks is providing about the illegal and immoral things that corporations and governments are up to. Wikileaks is well within the legal bounds of free speech and strives for the greatest common morality by attempting to make the unaccountable accountable and our society is the better for it. Yet in the mainstream media Wikileaks is portrayed as illegal and immoral. That is the definition of orwellian.

      • E.B. Wolf

        And those legal routes you refer to are? _____ (feel free to fill in the blanks)

  • WhiteRose

    A corporation can choose to do business with you or not… that’s why there are multiple companies that offer the same service :) wikileaks is an option not a right…there are plenty of legal routes to reveal corruption. All wikileaks does is allow the bad guys time to cover up their mess.

  • Hadrian999

    how do you propose to legally access and publish evidence of corruption when the ruling class makes sure the corrupt actions and linked information is classified?

  • Francoistremblay28

    Why do you not give the other side of the story, the Anonymous side? This site is just as biased as the news media.

  • Francoistremblay28

    Why do you not give the other side of the story, the Anonymous side? This site is just as biased as the news media.

    • BananaFamine

      Simply reporting the latest via ABC News, if you have a recent article published by a Pro-Anonymous group, I’d be glad to post as well. Most the stories here are only links to other sites reporting on controversial issues.

      I take no stance in my article submissions.

      • BananaFamine

        Fox News* not ABC.

    • Boseindulgence88

      This article is from Fox news, so it’s from the media.

  • BananaFamine

    Simply reporting the latest via ABC News, if you have a recent article published by a Pro-Anonymous group, I’d be glad to post as well. Most the stories here are only links to other sites reporting on controversial issues.

    I take no stance in my article submissions.

  • BananaFamine

    Fox News* not ABC.

  • Simiantongue

    What the banks, Paypal et al did was more egregious than a simply a chioce of free association. They enacted sanctions against Wikileaks. You are either unaware of what they did exactly, or are being disingenuous.

    Corporations are there to provide a needed service to the public in general and those involved have the right to make something while providing that service. The corporation is not an end unto itself, there just to make a few rich beyond avarice at the cost to the many. A corporation exists at the behest of and to provide for the public needed service and there are public accommodation laws to that effect. But the bottom line is that as far as corporations are concerned no they cannot deny service without very good reasons. Especially where there are economic and other considerations at stake. I have yet to see any evidence provided they did what they did in the name of public service as far as Wikileaks was concerned. Unless you count the authoritative dictates handed down from specific government entities as sufficient reason for sanctions against Wikileaks without cause. Wikileaks was breaking no laws after all.

    In the United States Wikileaks does in fact function under the same rights as any other journalistic outlet. What I think sticks in some people craw is the fact that Wikileaks, unlike the mainstream media seems to be outside the establishment processes(read here somewhat beyond the establishments ability to control information flow as of yet). In mainstream media when talking heads say things that the establishment doesn’t like there is the possibility of consequences for that. For instance some news commentator going what is considered “too far”, then their career will suffer as a result. Not so with Wikileaks. That is in fact what the government reaction to Wikileaks is about after all. Coming to terms with an organization that seems beyond (for the moment) establishment control. Even going beyond what is legal and actually moral in order to show that “no matter what” there will be consequences. Anything beyond the control of authority is considered a “threat” to authority. Anything deemed a threat by or to Authority is always more or less successfully opposed by that Authority; and that this is so largely because of the vastly greater resources which can be brought systematically to bear on the issue in question. This imbalance goes to the heart of the nature and exercise of power and becomes acute where matters of deep politics are involved. They will use whatever means they have legal or illegal, moral or immoral because the ends to preserving the authority is seen as the highest priority.

  • Simiantongue

    In addition it find it ironic that corporations and the US government continually step outside what is legal and moral to act against Wikileaks to try and stop the information that WIkileaks is providing about the illegal and immoral things that corporations and governments are up to. Wikileaks is well within the legal bounds of free speech and strives for the greatest common morality by attempting to make the unaccountable accountable and our society is the better for it. Yet in the mainstream media Wikileaks is portrayed as illegal and immoral. That is the definition of orwellian.

  • E.B. Wolf

    And those legal routes you refer to are? _____ (feel free to fill in the blanks)

  • Boseindulgence88

    This article is from Fox news, so it’s from the media.