Anonymous Gets in the Party Van

July 19, 2011 -

Reuters is reporting that the FBI today raided six locations in New York and conducted several searches in California on Tuesday as part of a sweeping investigation of the Internet hacktivist group Anonymous. The targets of the raids in New York included a residence in Brooklyn and five other locations on Long Island. According to the report, these homes were searched for computers and other related equipment suspected of being used by members of the group to commit various cyber crimes.

FBI spokesman Tim Flannelly, said the searches in New York were "in relation to an ongoing investigation" of Anonymous. At least one laptop was removed from one home, but no arrests were made in any of the New York locations. Meanwhile on the other side of the country, FBI agents in California were conducting what they called "law enforcement actions" in the San Francisco Bay Area but did not say if anyone was arrested.

"I don't think anybody should be surprised," said Josh Shaul, chief technical officer of Application Security, Inc., speaking of today's raids to Reuters. "They played with fire and they got burned."

While some are reporting that there hasn't been an arrest related to these FBI raids, The Escapist claims that at least 14 have been arrested in multiple states including New York, New Jersey, California, and Florida. Computer equipment and related materials were also seized, the report claims.

FBI spokeswoman Alicia Senisbaugh told Fox News today: "I can confirm that we're conducting law enforcement actions relating to a criminal investigation."

source: Huffington Post by way of Neal Ballard, The Escapist


Comments

Re: Anonymous Gets in the Party Van

Ah, but the plot thickens. Supposedly Anonymous was planning to release emails concerning a certain recently closed newspaper. Coincidence?

 

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/07/19/1536222/Anonymous-To-Release-Sun-N...

-------

"WARNING GUARANTEE: This post contains material which a truly free society would neither fear nor suppress."

-------

"WARNING GUARANTEE: This post contains material which a truly free society would neither fear nor suppress."

Re: Anonymous Gets in the Party Van

But none of them are part of Anonymous!  Anonymous disavows any knowledge of anyone's actions.

- Left4Dead

Why are zombies always eating brains? I want to see zombies that eat toes for a living. Undead-related pun intended.

- Left4Dead Why are zombies always eating brains? I want to see zombies that eat toes for a living. Undead-related pun intended.

Re: Anonymous Gets in the Party Van

It doesn't matter. Anonymous or not, they were caught being involved in cyber crime.

You don't have to be part of a splinter group who cowers behind anonyminity to be guilty of a crime.

 

 

"And though we may pledge fanboy allegiances to different flags, deep down inside we all serve one master, one king. And his name... is GAMING! FOREVER MAY HE REIGN!"

http://www.examiner.com/video-games-in-atlanta/mike-chrysler

Re: Anonymous Gets in the Party Van

"Anonymous or not, they were caught being involved in cyber crime." [citation needed]

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Anonymous Gets in the Party Van

FBI spokeswoman Alicia Senisbaugh told Fox News today: "I can confirm that we're conducting law enforcement actions relating to a criminal investigation."

 

"And though we may pledge fanboy allegiances to different flags, deep down inside we all serve one master, one king. And his name... is GAMING! FOREVER MAY HE REIGN!"

http://www.examiner.com/video-games-in-atlanta/mike-chrysler

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
MattsworknameDitto kotaku, Gawker, VOX, Polygon, ETC07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
MechaTama31So, between pulling a game from one chain of stores, and forcing editorial changes to a media source, only one of them strikes you as being on the edge of censorship, and it's the game one?07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician