The first part I really am against. WTF?
2nd Part - meh - who cares?
3rd Part - this should be public knowledge.
yeah, I’m not interested in clicking links to purported black hat URLs without someone vouching for their safety. I thought pastebin was the place the cool kids bragged about their ops these days.
Are journalists ever going to learn Anonymous is not an organization? It’s an ethos. You could “kill the number three man” all day long, but the beast really has no head.
They never understood that about Al-Qaeda either. Silly nation-states.
From the comments, written by the person who put the post up:
Fortunately I am not based in the US, so I won’t be subject to the CFAA. Any arrest will be under UK law and I’ve already consulted a legal team concerning these types of release, and we are confident no laws have been broken.
Worked great for Kim Dotcom.
And Richard O’Dwyer only avoided extradition by signing a deferred prosecution agreement.
Or, you know, they could just cook up some other charges to get him with. From the sound of it, though, if they do that, he (or someone else) will dump the entire, un-redacted, 18TB trove, rather than the small subset released already.
Not sure I can vouch for it’s safety, but it’s not a [quote=“funruly, post:3, topic:72980”]
purported black hat URL
The claim, anyway, is that the poster is serving in the role of wikileaks, and is not directly affiliated with the people who got the data. I can’t tell you whether or not it is a black hat URL, but it definitely doesn’t purport to be one.
I don’t understand why the police are so upset. Cops always say if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing about which to worry.
Suck it, Anaheim 5-0.
I try to support unions, but man, those guys…
I automatically assume whomever says that is hiding something…
(Batting 1000 so far!)
Someone in the comments noted that the FOP was collecting credit card donations on their public webpage using plaintext HTTP. So it’s not just cops and their families that are going to have their information published, but many of their donors, too.
That sort of breach could cost the FOP $16 million or more.
That’s just a word press site - so it’s about as safe as any WP site is on the net these days (prolly safer considering the context)
I guess my point is more to the fact that mainstream outlets ought do more when posting a URL to a custom, obscure, domain with ties to black hats. If someone, in this case The Guardian, is covering the Black Hat beat, then they should save their readers the trouble of independently URL checking and sandbox browsing.
Police unions aren’t a labor union. They’re basically clubs that offers legal services for their members. Police officers aren’t at a disadvantage negotiating with the government, and they don’t need collective bargaining. At least, not nearly to the extent of real labor unions.
ETA: I’m a big union guy myself. I love unions. I am not a union member at the moment, but my dad is and was a member of the IBEW. Being part of the union means being treated fairly for insurance, and pay and benefits. It means that the members are policed and have to live up to a standard of quality in the work they do. And it means that training and apprenticeship programs are well-organized and run regularly in order to train professionals in the field.
The FOP, on the other hand, is basically just a lobbying group with aspirations of government control.
Hence, their exclusion from all the new laws that restrict labor unions…
I should add that I’m a Dapper Dan man…
do the 18 terrab’s exist ?
or is this an insurance ploy ?
You’re running a fully patched browser. What do you think will happen?
I’m not sure that I follow what you think that they should do and what you think the risks are (and you know I do Firefox security work for a living).