It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cybergate: Leaked E-mails Hint at Corporate Hacking Conspiracy

page: 1
50
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+15 more 
posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Cybergate: Leaked E-mails Hint at Corporate Hacking Conspiracy


www.securitynewsdaily.com

Corporate espionage, shady political motives, secret documents, closed door meetings, confidential hacking plots – there’s a scandal brewing in the cybersecurity world that has all the makings of a best-selling John Grisham novel.

Three computer-security consulting firms proposed to hack left-wing nonprofit organizations on behalf of a well-connected law firm, a firm whose clients include Bank of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, according to e-mails released by the shadowy “hacktivist” group Anonymous.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Anonymous hacks US Security company HGBary - Releases email leaks
Security Firms Pitching Bank of America on WikiLeaks Response Proposed Targeting Glenn Greenwald
Anonymous Has the Bomb




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
It looks like the roaches are scattering.. 2 of the 3 firms outed by the release of the emails have cut ties with HBGary Federal, and trying to profess their disgust with the companies plans..

Bank of America and the Chamber of Commerce basically pulled the "We didn't know" card..



I remember something about BoA back a few weeks ago assembling their own crew to handle the fallout from an expected Wikileaks release of some information about a major bank. Could this group of security firms have been their crew?

Could the plan ..


By hacking into the groups’ servers, the goal was to “discredit, confused, shame, combat, infiltrate, fracture,” the adversarial groups, according to the three firms’ proposal.


...be part of what Cass Sunstein implied last year when he wanted the Government to use it's resources to infiltrate websites?

While the folks who obtained this information will be investigated, found, arrested and prosecuted, shouldn't there be a new investigation surrounding the leaked information?

I think so, but I would have to agree with Glenn Greenwald when he writes..


“Cyberattacks are ‘crimes’ only when undertaken by those whom the government dislikes, but are perfectly permissible when the government itself or those with a sympathetic agenda unleash them,”






www.securitynewsdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Good find. S&F.

*breaks out the popcorn to watch this thread unfold*



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
www.salon.com...

yeah, scroom any legitimate data, smear the reputations and contaminate the information stream.

Is that REALLY the way cybersecurity is now working?
Since everyone wanting 'in' for a piece of the pie can no longer make heads or tails of the technical side or even follow the flowcharts anyway?



...
smug in the woolly cotton brains of infancy.
the music and voices with all around us.
choose, they croon, the ancient ones, the time has come again.
choose now, they croon, beneath the moon, beside an ancient lake.
enter again the sweet forest.
enter the hot dream, come with us.
everything is broken up and dances.
indian scattered on dawn's highway bleeding.
ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
we have assembled inside this ancient and insane theatre
to propagate our lust for life and flee the swarm of wisdom's restraints. -Jim Morrison, The Ghost Song



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Excellent find

SnF

I wonder how the damage control freaks will spin this one?
Here is an excerpt from the linked article,” Aaron Barr, chief executive of the Washington, D.C.-area cybersecurity firm HBGary Federa, e-mail account contains details… of a strategic plan to attack WikiLeaks using disinformation… to sway public opinion against WikiLeaks and even launching cyberattacks to cripple the whistleblower site. HBGary Federal was working in conjunction with two more security firms, Berico Technologies and Palantir Technologies, both of which have Washington, D.C.-area offices and extensive government and Department of Defense connections. All three groups were brought together by New York-based law firm Hunton & Williams, which represents Bank of America."
www.securitynewsdaily.com...
Seems like the finger pointing has begun.

edit on 15-2-2011 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Excellent find. S&F&


As you say:



While the folks who obtained this information will be investigated, found, arrested and prosecuted, shouldn't there be a new investigation surrounding the leaked information?

I think so, but I would have to agree with Glenn Greenwald when he writes..


“Cyberattacks are ‘crimes’ only when undertaken by those whom the government dislikes, but are perfectly permissible when the government itself or those with a sympathetic agenda unleash them,”




...That's the whole idea behind Wikileaks and Anonymous - to expose the crimes perpetrated by our lofty leaders - so they can be held accountable.

It's all about true democracy: democracies are supposed to be transparent and accountable to the people. But we are governed by a corporate-government partnership that shuts us out completely. International trade agreements override our national laws and individual rights and freedoms - and the terms stipulate government-corporate confidentiality and non-transparency to our nations' citizens! Time for change.

Thank you Wikileaks. Thank you Anonymous.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow


...That's the whole idea behind Wikileaks and Anonymous - to expose the crimes perpetrated by our lofty leaders - so they can be held accountable.




Agreed, but if I remember correctly evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible in court? If that is the case, how do these exposed crimes/conspiracies ever end with justice?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Originally posted by JacKatMtn

Originally posted by soficrow


...That's the whole idea behind Wikileaks and Anonymous - to expose the crimes perpetrated by our lofty leaders - so they can be held accountable.




Agreed, but if I remember correctly evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible in court? If that is the case, how do these exposed crimes/conspiracies ever end with justice?


I don't know. But I DO know that anything that ends with justice starts with public awareness.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


I would think that, while the hacked data is inadmissible, now that the information contained therein is public domain, that could be used as probable cause for obtaining warrants which probably will lead to other evidence, such as computers, data records, etc.

~Heff



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I don't think so... the wikileaks stuff may be more legal considering the whistleblower aspect..

Anonymous admitting that they acquired the data illegally (hacking), makes it inadmissible IMO..

Now if anonymous was smart.. and not so ready to boast of discoveries like this, could have leaked it anonymously to media, wikileaks, cryptome etc.. and it may have been a different story.

Maybe some calls for Congress to open an investigation? I wonder if the government could actually be investigated by it's own agencies using the same provisions of the Patriot Act they use on the citizens?

I still think the oath our soldiers take says that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

Wouldn't those security firms fall under the domestic? wouldn't their exposed plans be domestic cyberterrorism?

Doesn't seem a stretch to think so..



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


I agree Jack. The hacked info is inadmissible. Totally. But I believe the law has a caveat that, in situations like this, the inadmissible information can be used as a basis for further investigation.

IE - now a DA can say "Based upon information in the public arena, we became aware of possible wrongdoings and initiated an investigation against so and so, obtained warrants, and seized X in our search."

The fact that this information is now public it can, I believe, be used as the basis to begin an investigation.

~Heff



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Understood.. now if an investigation is launched due to these inadmissible revelations, how much do you think those investigators will find now that this is public knowledge?

My guess... ZERO.. it's all been sterilized.

I can see some company name changes in the near future, and business as usual..

Unless.. wikileaks dumps the bank files they hint to having, and BoA is the bank that the files are associated with, and some folks are rounded up and start talking for negotiating lesser sentences in a later criminal investigation, then, we may see some of the folks involved in this anonymous hacking find their way to court..

Alot of ifs though, and the government never seems interested in bringing to court folks who might have some embarrassing testimony regarding the behind the scenes scheming of the government.

Government may just be getting ready to label some suspects mentally unable to stand trial like they did with Susan Lindauer and what they seem to be doing with Brad Manning?

I don't know, but I wouldn't put it past them...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 




My guess... ZERO.. it's all been sterilized.


I know here in Australia we have Pine Gap which keeps a copy of all digital communications, voice, net, ect... This is all Top Secret national security stuff and your local court case does not get access to it, as far as I know. Sounds like there are similar sites in America and anything that went through cyberspace will have a backup or few somewhere. Now with the Patriot act it may also be admissible in a court of law from my understanding.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


The problem is.. these folks were working with the government,

Funny how the HBGary webpage is gone?


www.hbgaryfederal.com is offline

www.hbgaryfederal.com is currently offline. Please try again later.




Here's the cached page:

hbgaryfederal cached


I doubt very seriously that the government is looking into this, I would suspect they are more interested in how to make this one disappear?



edit on Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:31:48 -0600 by JacKatMtn because: fix code



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
it's ironic that hbgary federal has very close ties to the governments cybersecurity framework. hacked by a 16 year old! i very much think they will want to bury a lot of the facts. a pdf file with thousands of innocent social network users possibly targeted as sympathisers of wiki and anon apparently ready to be handed over to agencies to target. the irc was a belting read!
f



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


But... and this is just a scenario. Say you sell drugs to an undercover police officer. The sale (and therefor the purchase) is illegal yet the drugs themselves constitute physical evidence. That evidence was gathered during the process of committing a crime as the sale and purchase of drugs is illegal. Surely the purchase of that "evidence" is not legal simply because it was done by an officer of the law, who technically committed a crime in order to obtain it.

Now, we know that the exclusionary rule is covered by a persons 4th amendments rights and that a corporation can legally be defined as a PERSON and as such is protected under the constitution, but this rule is intended to protect the person from illegal search and seizure by those acting on behalf of the state and law enforcement in general. Anonymous is not law enforcement and is not acting on behalf of the state. In which case, does the exclusionary rule apply where the evidence gathered, although illegally, was done so by "Joe Public"?

A quick trip to Wikipedia and theres a reference to Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 which concludes:




Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials."



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 


It would be nice if the Government, and the agencies who enforce the laws, heeded your approach, somehow the track record (especially the past five years), isn't looking too good.. but I see where you are coming from, and in an honest government it should be possible, in current reality, not a chance in hades.. IMO of course.

Let's hope to be pleasantly surprised



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 




As an early adopter of HBGary Digital DNA, the U.S. government understands that the bad guys not only exist but are already inside our mission critical systems.

From your cached link.

So the US government is happy with this situation? This has given U.S. Chamber Watch and ThinkProgress a wealth of support and really put the heat on the US Chamber of Commerce. I do understand the power the US Chamber of Commerce has with recently being allowed to ID every person and manage a digital economic passport for them. It is hard to say who knew and done what, but with such critical systems at stake is it safe to leave this power unaccounted?

There are also some important discussions about to start with the IMF and the G20. The stability of the international monetary system is at stake and the ongoing corruption is a major issue. With the US Chamber of Commerce involved with this type of behaviour it is sending the wrong message to the international community. No one wants to see the American people suffer, but no one want to be taken for a ride either.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I'm a bit concerned that the commerce departments involvement in trying to smear their political opponents via a company that gets FEDERAL contract money is getting lost here in the wikileaks/Greenwald stuff - not that I don't care about that - but this commerce dept stuff - woah -

...and if you've been reading the same wikileaks cables I have, you are already wondering about the role of commerce in US foreign dealings.
Strike :State Dept.
Rename: SALES Dept.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


This is why, after reading the Emails leaked, I get a very ugly feeling about HBGary. The sorts of tactics they were to use against imagined foes is worse than those that the people exposing them have intended...

I can only imagine the absolute gut wrenching shame Aaron et al felt when they realised their shady activities were now public knowledge.

The fact that in the IRC chat log, Aaron still showed all the signs of a dog in a corner, barking and growling knowing the game was over, proves he really knows he's screwed...

Ha, but HBGary Federal was only 15% of the company... so, they're all innocent on the other, angelic side of things..


edit on 15/2/2011 by badw0lf because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
50
<<   2 >>

log in

join