back to article Three more charged in Anonymous hack spree probe

Federal prosecutors filed charges against three men accused of carrying out website attacks as part of an extended campaign linked to the Anonymous hacking crew. Cody Kretsinger, 23, of Phoenix was accused of participating in a hack of the Sony Pictures website that exposed the names, email addresses, and passwords of thousands …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Turtle


    It is pretty typical that these people would be attacking websites is support of WikiLeaks. One would think that a more important target, from their point of view, would be to attack *WikiLeaks* itself as a gesture of support for Bradley Manning, since WikiLeaks actually leaks nothing; the actual leaking is done by people like Bradley Manning. WikiLeaks merely sells the material after someone like Manning has done the leaking. To encourage these kinds of leaks, the leakers themselves need to be supported, not the profiteers at WikiLeaks. It is not surprising that these idiots don't realize this.

    And it would not matter if WikiLeaks has not collected a single penny specifically in support of Manning; if it were not for the data the Manning gave them, would Assange have gotten $1.5 million for his autobiography? And how much has the publicity that WikiLeaks has received because of Manning's criminal actions been worth to them? Statements from Assange itself have indicated that he receives donations in the millions of dollars. And Manning gets a $15k kiss-off. Serves him right, too.

    (I still want to see both Assange and Manning get the death penalty. But these politically-motivated hackers are just so damn stupid...)

    1. Dennis Wilson


      Your posting has to be the greatest fantasy ever posted on the internet.

      The claims that Assange and Wikileaks made money on the Wikileaks operation are completely bogus. Assange was continually out with a begging bowl because he had put most of his own cash to keep Wikileaks going, and had nothing left in the piggy bank. He publicly stated that during a TV interview. It was the publicly rigged charge along with the rigged deportation hearing that made him money. Until then he and the Wikileaks operation was always one step ahead of financial ruin.

      As for Manning's finances Wikileaks could never publicly give him one single penny. To do that in public would be the link that the FBI needed to confirm his guilt and connection to Wikileaks. Manning would be found guilty before the trial had started. Public financial help from Wikileaks would crucify the man. Having said that, I bet they were privately very much involved in Manning's financial affairs.

      As for the hacking and DDOS attacks Assange publicly stated that there was no connection to him, and that he had no control over their actions. They were completely independent and operated under their own rules

      1. Turtle


        You seem to rely on what Assange has said being the final and indeed only test of truth. Go right ahead. Such a stance speaks for itself. However, Assange says a lot of things and some are rather more believable - and unflattering - than others.

        But let's look at some particulars:

        WikiLeaks as an impoverished organization running on shoestring, being financed via the Assange Piggy Bank::

        Look at: "The attack has blocked over 90% of the non-profit organization’s donations, costing some $15M in lost revenue." Translating from math to words, if $15m is 90% then their donations would typically amount to $16.6million.

        That's quite a "begging bowl".

        And look at this article here: and note the link to a copy of the NDA that WIkipedia staff must sign. Let me quote a few lines from it: ".. loss and damage to WikiLeaks including without limitation loss and damage in the nature of A) Loss of opportunity to sell the information to other news broadcasters and publishers . . . D) Loss of value of the information F)Possible legal proceedings against WikiLeaks for loss of value to parties of other agreements. (Further on:) The parties agree that a genuine and reasonable pre-estimate of the loss to WikiLeaks from a breach of this agreement based on a typical open market valuation for this information for a significant breach of this agreement is in the region of twelve million pounds sterling.)"

        Read this too: and note the following line:"Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released." Oh wait, Vanity Fair must *also* be involved in an anti-WikiLeaks conspiracy.

        And just in case you don't get the message, let me quote this from WikiLeaks NDA: "All information. . . provided by WikiLeaks, is confidential remains the property of WikiLeaks."

        In short: WIkiLeaks has millions of dollars flowing through it hands form both donations and sale of documents given to it, is indeed in the business of selling information and documents, is zealous about guarding what it considers its property, and, most importantly, is certainly *not* being financed out of Assange's piggy bank. The only pig here is Assange himself, and if he taken anything out of his piggy bank, the only way it could have gotten into that piggy bank was via money sent to WikiLeaks and put in his piggy bank.

        (We have not even touched the fact that John Young of Cryptome considers that WikiLeaks is a criminal organization and that their ultimate backer is George Soros:

        First, is the original Cryptome posting here:


        "Wikileaks has always been a commercial enterprise hiding behind a narcissistic "public interest" PR, says Cryptome operator John Young in a scathing critique of the site."

        "They have been selling restricted information from the beginning of their enterprises. Some do it as employees and off-the-books agents of governments and business and individuals, some do it as rogue entrepreneurs like Wikileaks"

        "Assange stated at the beginning of Wikileaks it expected to make big bucks, $5M the first year he wrote on a private mail list -- among other pimping messages later published on Cryptome."

        "Soros and the Kochs have their lesser-known Internet promoters backing Wikileaks generously. And they expect good return on their investment, not just the freebies used to attract attention."

        There is also this Register article: which contains links not only to the Cryptome post, but also to a page with an article and an audio file of an interview with Young:

        I will quote the article:

        "I think it is a money-making operation, no doubt," Young said of WikiLeaks.

        "It follows the model of a number of other business intelligence operations. Selling intelligence information is a very lucrative field, and so they are following that model, usually cloaked in some kind of public benefit,"

        Asked specifically whether he was charging WikiLeaks with selling classified information and documents, Young replied, "Yes."


        Re: Your statements concerning the legal implications of WikiLeaks and any donations from them to Bradley Manning's defense:

        Read this:

        Here's some quotes: "Wikileaks has donated $15,000 to the Bradley Manning Support Network. . . .It's taken Wikileaks seven months to honour its pledge to pay Manning's legal fees - and the gift still leaves the support group a few dollars short of its $115,000 target. . .Assange, meanwhile, has signed lucrative book deals worth $1.7m (£1.1m)."

        So let's re-read your statement: "As for Manning's finances Wikileaks could never publicly give him one single penny. To do that in public would be the link that the FBI needed to confirm his guilt and connection to Wikileaks. Manning would be found guilty before the trial had started. Public financial help from Wikileaks would crucify the man."

        Now, note that WikiLeaks *has* given money to Manning, Manning *has* accepted it, and that the FBI was investigating a WikiLeaks-Manning connection before this. Also note that the FBI, and even moderately educated people know that such a donation has no legal bearing on the matter in *any* court of law.


        You seem to have already investigated the sex charges against Assange and found them to be fraudulent. I am curious to know when you were able to depose the women involved.

        "It was the publicly rigged charge along with the rigged deportation hearing that made him money." Are they "rigged" because they are contrary to law and the evidence presents, or are they "rigged" simply because you like Assange?

        Well, seeing as how you were wrong about everything else that you wrote, the overwhelming probability is that you are wrong about this too. Just based on your, you know, track record.

        1. Scorchio!!
          Thumb Up

          Re: *shrugs*

          I think that there's been some dawning of awareness amongst his little friends, but don't expect them to have an epiphany; Jules still seen by many people as a white haired angel. There's one little twit who follows me around voting my posts on the topic down (which is rather funny, because I am clearly important to them), presumably because they believe in the argumentum ad populum, something which many Germans believed up until their shattering defeat in 1945, and that's the problem here; people believe, or want to believe, and they reject the truth when it is shoved under their noses. Don't let that put you off; repeatedly pointing out the truth is necessary, if only because reminding people of the truth (when those who advocate the opposite fall silent) keeps an issue alive, keeps the truth alive, and thus reduces the probability that lies will gain strength at the expense of the truth.

          1. Turtle

            : )

            Scorchio, thank you for the encouraging words. I have of course no hope that people like Wilson above will change their views - once someone resorts to conspiracy theories, the matter is usually hopeless. (Speaking of which, I wonder if he will take Assange's lead and start blaming the Jews - even if Assange now denies doing so.)

            I simply could not leave such a post unchallenged, containing, as it did, no facts at all, and quite a few falsehoods. And, to be honest, I think it was worthwhile to take the time to assemble all those quotes and links in one place.

            Thanks again!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      VERY typical

      You want to see them get the Death Penalty? Manning is innocent until proven guilty. He has only been accused, and YOU have not seen the evidence yet you somehow have convicted and sentenced him to death?

      Assange, has not even be forrmally accused, and you have done the same to him.

      You are sick. Clearly you are just another lemming that believes whatever you hear in the press. All you do is show a lack of common sense.

      1. Scorchio!!

        Re: VERY typical

        Whilst I am opposed to capital sentencing - on the common sense grounds alone that it is not possible to be 100% sure that an offender is guilty - I don't have to see him tried to know that he has been fencing state secrets. Do you, or do you perhaps think that a fairy at the bottom of Julian Assange's (TM) garden posted the material, or that the devil made him do it?

        In 1991 Assange (TM) was convicted on 25 counts for hacking, amongst other things, a Pentagon air force computer, the computers of Australian police who were investigating him and a variety of other offences. (He claimed he'd been misunderstood and treated wrongly!) Just as sex offenders start with small crimes - stealing underwear from washing lines - Assange's profile has bloomed. He was let off without a jail sentence and it is to be regretted. He should not have been; the US should have extradited him at that time (1991).

        No, there is no doubt that Assange did these things; he's even said so on public record, and he was convicted for hacking a Pentagon computer, for which appropriate punishment in the appropriate jurisdiction is outstanding.

        Accused? I suggest that you read some of the material put up by the OP, and some of the stuff JMB and I've made available, or do you suffer from solipsism, even when one Assange (TM) J has made it abundantly clearly that he has been profiting from the release of state secrets from a variety of countries? If so then... ...hmm.


  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I always wondered if those proxy services were good for anything.

    Although, if all he did to hide himself was use a proxy service and wipe his hard drive then I can't exactly give the guy props for being thorough in covering his tracks. The rule, after all, is a minimum of seven : )

    1. Scorchio!!
      Thumb Up


      "I always wondered if those proxy services were good for anything."

      No mention of Assange's reputedly fave tool, Tor/other. As Ronnie Rayguns once said, "message to terrorists everywhere, you can run but you can't hide".

  3. Sly

    not so Anonymous

    after all...

    /coat mine has the Illuminati membership card in the pocket.

  4. Electric Panda

    I don't know what people think hacktivist attacks like this are supposed to achieve. Not only are they releasing the personal details of innocent people (not to mention plain irresponsible and downright dangerous in the case of law enforcement informants and unredacted Wikileaks cables), they are also acquiring this information fraudulently and unlawfully - it's not like they worked for a company with legitimate access to the information and chose to spill, it's the equivalent of you breaking into my house and stealing my TV when I could just put it out on the street for people to help themselves. The information for the most part isn't even of public interest and "the lulz" i.e. "because we can" is not a valid excuse. Doing this, and then saying "Well, you should have secured it better" isn't an acceptable answer either. If I went off to Australia for a month and accidentally left my front door unlocked, does that give you a moral and legal right to steal my TV even if I've never met you and you've never visited my house before?

    Oh, and the tens of thousands of SQL injection requests sounds like skid SQLi tools making bazillions of automated injection GET requests and crossing fingers. Such master 1337-hackers after all.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    It seems that the agencies are great at picking up Script Kiddies, DDOSers, and some of the SQL Injectors, but that the more sophisticated corporate espionage style security breaches go routinely over their heads.

    15 years is a bit of an extreme upper limit for this sort of crime I think.

    1. laird cummings

      Upper limit

      15 years is the maximum - MUCH more likely to get less than 5 years, unless they *really* piss off the judge.

      Now, if you were giving out the private details of, say, CIA operatives, or managed to disable the NSA, *then* you'd be more likely to see a maximum sentence.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This is good

    The more Antisec criminals they prosecute the better. Five years rrison time should be a minimum.

  7. Tensigh

    Nail 'em

    I hope they nail these bastards. They use "political justice" as an excuse for vadalism. Wikileaks didn't reveal anything important and Julian Assho- Assange just was out to make money.

    Nail these crackers to the wall!

  8. LawLessLessLaw

    get a grip

    > which pass powerful database commands

    hello, this is not the Daily Mail

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    America, invented 100s of new weapons,

    army vehicles, surveillance aircraft, and much more, and spent ten years, culminating in the invasion of a sovereign country which was using his invisibility to get aid, just to buttfuck someone they didn't like. He was hiding in caves, and at the expense of the Pakistan government, seems to me, and using virtually every mechanism for hiding imaginable, and they still got him. The last time something of this magnitude happened was when Rome chased Hannibal to the ends of the earth.

    And yet, despite all this evidence that the first commandment, "Don't fuck with America", a bunch of guys think it's hilarious to bring down half their business network, as if nothing was going to happen.

    It's not about right or wrong. It's about, do you keep driving when an artic is overtaking a car in your direction, even though it's your right of way.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022