+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Black Operations (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-9.html)
+--- Thread: Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive (/thread-5039.html)
Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive - Peter Lemkin - 09-01-2011
The official Wikileaks Twitter account has just tweeted the following official statement:
WARNING all 637,000 @wikileaks followers are a target of US gov subpoena against Twitter, under section 2. B http://is.gd/koZIA(Source)
Tweeters currently online are expressing vehement outrage at the prospect of relinquishing their right to deny the U.S. government access to their IP addresses, banking details, connection records, email addresses and more. Talk of a class action law suit is already under way and a #ClassActionWL thread has been initiated. In most cases, anonymous Tweets are not considered official sources, but it seems an exception must be made in the present case, given that users are the very parties involved.
Users unfollowing the Wikileaks Twitter account at this time will not be exempt from the order, which seems to apply to users having received Wikileaks tweets in the past:
Too late to unfollow; trick used is to demand the lists, dates and IPs of all who received our twitter messages. (Source)
Updates on any forthcoming press releases and public statements will be posted here.
more.... http://wlcentral.org/node/863
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issued subpoena directly ordered Wikileaks and other parties to provide information regarding any account either registered to or in any way associated with the following individuals or user names:
rop_g
ioerror
birgittaj
Julian Assange
Bradley Manning
Rop Gonggrijp
Birgitta Jonsdottir
The information to be supplied, however, pertains to both the sources and destinations of these accounts. This is to include
records of user activity for any connections made to or from the Account, including the date, time, length, and method of connections, data transfer volume, user name, and source and destination Internet Protocol address(es).
[N]on-content information associated with the contents of any communication or file stored by or for the account(s), such as the source and destination email addresses and IP addresses. (Source; original pdf subpoena)
Note that the requirement of turning over user names and "destination IP addresses" would range over any electronic device (like a phone or computer) receiving communications from the above named individuals. (To see the information revealed by your IP address, click here. )
As other sources have pointed out, the order implicates more than just the above named users and user accounts. The language seems to implicate every Twitter follower of each of the named accounts, which explains Wikileaks' announcement that "all 637,000 @wikileaks followers are a target".
In examining the language of the subpoena, this seems like a real possibility. "Communication" would seem to encompass the receipt of any tweet on Twitter, given that data transmission is involved. Hence the language is inclusive of any individual following the primary targets who receives Wikileaks tweets on their Twitter timeline, for instance. The same is true of any Twitter user receiving tweets from ioerror, rop_g, and so on.
Yet if we grant that all followers will be implicated by virtue of having received tweet data from the 7 primary targets, it seems the present language is also inclusive of anyone who has clicked on a link directing them to a tweet from any of the above accounts. If you did view one of these tweets at some point on or after November 1, 2009 (the cut-off date in stipulated in the subpoena) but were not signed in to Twitter, then even if you are not a registered user, it seems you too qualify as a "connection made to or from" the accounts. There is no stipulation that 'connections' must be from users who are following Wikileaks et al., or even that they must be from users who are signed in. If Twitter logs visitors, and it certainly does, then visitor data will be in these logs irrespective of whether they have a Twitter account.
How significant is this and what information about you will be visible if you fall under the range of affected parties? To get an idea, note that Twitter stores (or "may" store) the following data, according to the following excerpt from its privacy policy.
Location Information, including "exact coordinates"
Log Data created by your use of the Services. Log Data may include information such as your IP address, browser type, the referring domain, pages visited, and search terms. Other actions, such as interactions with advertisements, may also be included in Log Data.
Links: Twitter may keep track of how you interact with links in Tweets across our Services including third party clients.
While the data logged by Twitter are managed by Twitter, and while keeping your information private is a significant priority for any such large company hoping to stay in business, presumably, the same cannot be said of U.S. government entities. Even if there is no concern over how your data will be used by those entities, the likelihood that your information will remain private decreases significantly with every additional party possessing access to it.
Yet concern over the manner in which your information can be used may be legitimate. In tracking paths to and from Twitter, logs exist that document internet browsing tendencies, sites visited, timestamps, host name, search terms used and more. All this information can be easily accessed from any user not browsing through an anonymity tool like Tor and you don't need to be logged in to a site in order to disclose your data.
Although anyone can get this information from you when you visit their site, the concern here is over the manner in which the data will be used. Insofar as your information exists in the database that brought us the Terror Watch List, and insofar as you have been suspected of being the ally of a "high tech terrorist", trivial data have the potential of becoming legally relevant. And if the language of the court order is inclusive of all individuals ever having accessed a tweet from any of the targeted accounts (since 2009), then the number of people affected by the subpoena is much larger than the previous estimate of 600,000 Wikileaks followers.
http://wlcentral.org/node/864
Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive - Peter Lemkin - 10-01-2011
Mon, 01/10/2011 - 04:36
ACLU released a statement condemning the court order from the US government requiring Twitter to provide information about subscribers who are associated with Wikileaks. From Aden Fine, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Speech, Privacy and Technology Project:
"These government requests for detailed information about individuals' Internet communications raise serious First Amendment concerns and will have a chilling effect on people's willingness to engage in lawful communications over the Internet. There are serious doubts as to whether the government's interest in obtaining all of this private and constitutionally protected information is sufficiently compelling to outweigh the constitutional interests at stake.
"Twitter should be commended for moving to unseal the court order, but we are very troubled that the order was filed under seal in the first place. Except in truly extraordinary circumstances, Internet users should receive notice, and an opportunity to go to court to defend their constitutional rights, before their rights are compromised."
One of the people named in the order is US citizen Jacob Appelbaum who is flying back to the US today. According to his twitter, ACLU members will be meeting him at the airport.
Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive - Magda Hassan - 11-01-2011
'Anonymous' hackers deface Fine Gael website‎
![[Image: _50728776_00041438-314-1.jpg]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50728000/jpg/_50728776_00041438-314-1.jpg)
The site was set up by the Fine Gael party last week A new website set up by Ireland's leading opposition party has been targeted by hackers linked to the whistle blowing website WikiLeaks.
Fine Gael set up the site last week, which asks the nation for their thoughts on how to improve Ireland.
However, it has now been shut down after hackers defaced the main page on Sunday night.
The official website slogan was replaced with the catchphrase, "The problem with politicians is they lie".
It is believed the site was targeted by a group called "Anonymous" - the same title used by hackers behind a recent spate of cyber attacks on companies that refused to provide services to the WikiLeaks website.
In a statement the party said: "The Fine Gael website was professionally hacked on the evening of 9 January by an entity calling themselves the Anonymous Group.
"The Anonymous Group has been associated with the WikiLeaks investigation and attacks on companies such as Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon.
"The website will be offline while we follow-up with the appropriate authorities to resolve the matter."
The Irish Data Protection Commissioner is investigating whether the personal data of thousands of people was compromised during the attack.
Commissioner Billy Hawkes confirmed that Fine Gael contacted his office following the security breach, as the party suspects that the personal data of those who posted comments or registered their details has been compromised.
The party has also contacted the Garda Computer Crime Unit in relation to the attack.
Visitors to the FineGael2011 site were greeted with a logo of a suited figure whose head had been replaced by a question mark and the message: "Nothing is safe, you put your faith in this political party and they take no measures to protect you.
"They offer you free speech yet they censor your voice. Wake Up."
The site was launched to much fanfare last week by party leader Enda Kenny.
It features a video of Mr Kenny sitting at a coffee shop and asking the nation for their thoughts on how to improve Irish politics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12151724
Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive - Peter Lemkin - 11-01-2011
Magda Hassan Wrote:'Anonymous' hackers deface Fine Gael website‎
A new website set up by Ireland's leading opposition party has been targeted by hackers linked to the whistle blowing website WikiLeaks.
Fine Gael set up the site last week, which asks the nation for their thoughts on how to improve Ireland.
However, it has now been shut down after hackers defaced the main page on Sunday night.
The official website slogan was replaced with the catchphrase, "The problem with politicians is they lie".
It is believed the site was targeted by a group called "Anonymous" - the same title used by hackers behind a recent spate of cyber attacks on companies that refused to provide services to the WikiLeaks website.
In a statement the party said: "The Fine Gael website was professionally hacked on the evening of 9 January by an entity calling themselves the Anonymous Group.
"The Anonymous Group has been associated with the WikiLeaks investigation and attacks on companies such as Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon.
"The website will be offline while we follow-up with the appropriate authorities to resolve the matter."
The Irish Data Protection Commissioner is investigating whether the personal data of thousands of people was compromised during the attack.
Commissioner Billy Hawkes confirmed that Fine Gael contacted his office following the security breach, as the party suspects that the personal data of those who posted comments or registered their details has been compromised.
The party has also contacted the Garda Computer Crime Unit in relation to the attack.
Visitors to the FineGael2011 site were greeted with a logo of a suited figure whose head had been replaced by a question mark and the message: "Nothing is safe, you put your faith in this political party and they take no measures to protect you.
"They offer you free speech yet they censor your voice. Wake Up."
The site was launched to much fanfare last week by party leader Enda Kenny.
It features a video of Mr Kenny sitting at a coffee shop and asking the nation for their thoughts on how to improve Irish politics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12151724
Yeah, I had seen this in another report, but couldn't find [or the information was missing] connecting in any logical manner why "Anonymous" would have chosen this party and their website. Anyone have a clue?
Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive - Magda Hassan - 11-01-2011
I expect that it is because they sold the country out to the bankers despite huge protests by the Irish people not to do so. Then they set up a web site soliciting opinions form the people which told them very clearly what they wanted and they were totally ignored. The web site is just window dressing and just going through the motion of consultation. Anonymous is just telling the Emperor that he wears no clothes and showing others that there are no clothes to be seen.
Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive - Magda Hassan - 11-01-2011
Below is the statement/open letter from Anonymous, on the news that Twitter received a subpoena from the American government to release information on Wikileaks' accounts.
To Twitter
To Whom It May Concern
Society finds itself at a crossroads. In our increasingly connected world, many seem to think that our constitutional rights are fit for reevaluation. As was demonstrated by Jessica Yellin's performance on CNN, even some journalists seem to think that is now a crime to publish confidential information, ignorant not only of the important role that documents such as the Pentagon Papers have had in shaping modern government, but also of the First Amendment.
The Department of Justice's subpoena (http://goo.gl/L1sCp) is but the latest in a series of assaults on our free society. The salient point is that Twitter was not used as a platform to distribute confidential information, nor was it used to broadcase hateful messages. The only crime that the users of the accounts named committed was to voice their opinion. For the DOJ to seek access to the personal details, network addresses, and session information of those users is not just unconstitutional, but quite frankly terrifying.
Twitter has revolutionized the way that people communicate, and has been celebrated as an agent of change. What type of message will it send if you were to divulge the personal details of people who have not commited any crime but speak their mind, to a government who fail to understand the zeitgeist. If you bow to these demands, you will be setting a dangerous precedent, seriously impacting the future of network neutrality. You can rest assured that your users will not forget if you were to give in now.
Although Twitter and Anonymous have had our grievances in the past, we (AnonOps) pledge to fully support your organisation if you will choose to fight this subpoena.
Yours Faithfully
Anonymous
We do not forgive. We do not forget.
c/o: AnonOps.ru To Department of Justice
To Whom It May Concern
We are regretful of your actions to attempt to retrieve information from Twitter about the account belonging to "Wikileaks", as by doing so you are attempting to remove the anonymity of the poster and by extension, their right to speech. We are confused as to why you have brought such a subpoena against Twitter, as there is little information you will gain from these details, leaving comments and observations on the world are to our understanding; not a criminal offence
Is this not the same type of action that you, DOJ, find reprehensible in other countries? How do you justify the same action in the US? No crime has been committed yet you assume that the populace at large will just "roll over" as always and allow this intrusion.
The time has come for the people of the world to take an active part in governing their own lives and freedoms. The world must become aware that its freedoms are in jeopardy. Today, Twitter, tomorrow, what? Recent events have shown that people are becoming tired of being treated this way. Why push an unwinnable confrontation when working for the same goal is always more productive (learn from history).
The US Government expressed concern over the Tunisian Government's actions when they attacked protesters' Facebook accounts. Is there a difference here? They attack and you use the "law" (loosely defined) to in essence do the same thing. What's the possible difference? Your motives are the same.
Yours Faithfully
Anonymous
We do not forgive. We do not forget.
c/o: AnonOps.ru
Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive - Peter Lemkin - 13-01-2011
Magda Hassan Wrote:US tells Twitter to hand over WikiLeaks supporter's messages
Icelandic MP to fight attempts by the US department of justice to access her private information
- Dominic Rushe in New York
- The Guardian, Saturday 8 January 2011
Birgitta Jonsdottir, the Icelandic MP and former WikiLeaks volunteer, who is now fighting a US justice department attempt to get hold of her private messages on Twitter Photograph: Halldor Kolbeins/AFP/Getty Images An Icelandic member of parliament and former WikiLeaks volunteer says the US justice department has contacted Twitter and asked the company to hand over her private messages.
Birgitta Jonsdottir, an MP for the Movement in Iceland, said last night on Twitter that the "usa government wants to know about all my tweets and more since november 1st 2009. Do they realize I am a member of parliament in Iceland?" She said she is starting a legal fight to stop the US getting hold of her messages. She wrote: "department of justice are requesting twitter to provide the info I got 10 days to stop it via legal process before twitter hands it over."
She said the justice department was "just sending a message and of course they are asking for a lot more than just my tweets."
Jonsdottir told the Guardian she was demanding a meeting with the US ambassador to Iceland. "The justice department has gone completely over the top," she said. She added the US authorities had requested personal information from Twitter as well as her private messages and that she was now assessing her legal position.
"They are sending a message, it's not just about my information. It's a warning for anyone who had anything to do with WikiLeaks," she said. "It is completely unacceptable for the US justice department to flex its muscles like this. I am lucky, I'm a representative in parliament. But what of other people? It's my duty to do whatever I can to stop this abuse."
Twitter would not comment on the case. In a statement the company said: "We're not going to comment on specific requests, but, to help users protect their rights, it's our policy to notify users about law enforcement and governmental requests for their information, unless we are prevented by law from doing so."
Most of Twitter's messages are public but users can also send private messages on the service.
Marc Rotenberg, president of online watchdog the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) in Washington, said it appeared the justice department was looking at building a case against WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange over its recent publication of masses of secret US documents.
EPIC has already requested that the US authorities hand over information about their investigations into people who have financially contributed to WikiLeaks via Mastercard, Visa or PayPal.
"The government has the right to get information but that has to be done in a lawful way. Is there a lawful prosecution that could be brought against WikiLeaks? It seems unlikely to me. But it's a huge question here in the US," said Rotenberg.
In 2009 Jonsdottir invited Assange to a party at the US embassy in Reykjavik where he chatted with the ambassador to Iceland. WikiLeaks had recently published a secret report on the collapse of the country's banks.
"I said it would be a bit of a prank to take him and see if they knew who he was. I don't think they had any idea," Jonsdottir said last year.
Jonsdottir was involved in WikiLeaks' release last year of a video which showed a US military helicopter gunning down two Reuters reporters in Iraq. US authorities believe the video was leaked by Private Bradley Manning. Adrian Lamo, the hacker who reported Manning to the authorities, indicated that Manning had first contacted WikiLeaks sometime in late November 2009 a time period covered by the government's request for Jonsdottir's tweet history.
The MP has recently distanced herself from Assange and WikiLeaks after arguing the founder should take a step back to deal with an investigation in Sweden. The 39-year-old is fighting extradition to Sweden, where two women have accused him of sexual misconduct. He denies the allegations.
In Iceland she has championed the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative which is aimed at creating legislation to make Iceland a legal haven for journalists and media outlets.
She is not the first WikiLeaks associate to be targeted by US officials. Last July Jacob Appelbaum, one of Assange's closest colleagues, was interrogated for three hours and had his phones confiscated upon entering the country at Newark airport. Customs officials photocopied receipts and searched his laptop.
The justice department did not returns calls seeking comment last night.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/08/us-twitter-hand-icelandic-wikileaks-messages
Here she is being interviewed yesterday in Canada. One can find many videos of her speaking on the internet, with a search. One very good one is from a journalism conference held at Univ. CA, Berkeley
Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive - David Guyatt - 13-01-2011
Being the cynic I am, I do hope Anonymous do not turn out to be a false flag type operation.
Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive - Peter Lemkin - 13-01-2011
David Guyatt Wrote:Being the cynic I am, I do hope Anonymous do not turn out to be a false flag type operation.
I don't think so; but, imagine the 'dirty little boys with their big electronic toys' trying to do a few ops that are presented as "Anonymous" but false-flag and constructed so as to cast "Anonymous" in a very negative light in public opinion.....that is likely to happen. IMO
Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive - Magda Hassan - 13-01-2011
Peter Lemkin Wrote:I'm with you on this one peter. The back room boys from the Company will be too excited to let an opportunity like that to pass them by. I think the 'real' anonymous, which is a loose amorphous unconnected network, will need to develop their own 'style' or code to differentiate them from the others that are sure to take advantage of the cover.David Guyatt Wrote:Being the cynic I am, I do hope Anonymous do not turn out to be a false flag type operation.
I don't think so; but, imagine the 'dirty little boys with their big electronic toys' trying to do a few ops that are presented as "Anonymous" but false-flag and constructed so as to cast "Anonymous" in a very negative light in public opinion.....that is likely to happen. IMO
pcguru:darthvader: