LulzSec Leader Betrays All of Anonymous
by Sam Biddle, us.gizmodo.comMarch 6th 2012 8:59 AM
The name Sabu should be familiar: as part of LulzSec, a potent offshoot of Anonymous, he masterminded legendary attacks against the CIA, FBI, Sony, and numerous other corporate and government targets. He was their Captain Hook. That was before. Fox News reports the shadowy hack deity is not only confirmed to be unemployed 28-year-old New Yorker Hector Xavier Monsegur, but that Sabu has been "collaborating with the government for months," leading to a string of arrests around the world today. It's unclear how many will be dragged down with Sabu's nine months of federal collaborating, but it's safe to assume whatever vestiges of LulzSec remained are toast—we'll know for sure when all of the indictments are unsealed.
And according to Fox, the dragnet was thick:
On August 15, 2011 Monsegur pleaded guilty to more than ten charges relating to his hacking activity. In the following few weeks, he worked almost daily out of FBI offices, helping the feds identify and ultimately take down the other high-level members of LulzSec and Anonymous, sources said.
That's right—the man who helped the internet celebrate #FuckFBIFridays was doing so from an FBI desk. But only after the feds wielded Sabu's children against him:
"He didn't go easy," a law enforcement official involved in flipping Sabu told FoxNews.com. "It was because of his kids. He didn't want to go away to prison and leave them. That's how we got him."
I've talked to Sabu multiple times, and on each occasion he's seemed more and more distant, to the point where it was hard to get in touch with him at all. Now, says the FBI, it's because he was busy ratting out his cadre.
This also isn't the first time Sabu's been accused as a snitch—a prominent hacker and Sabu-detractor by the name of Virus I spoke with last year ranted about his hunch that the LulzSec leader was a rat:
6:12:32 PM virus: I don't have proof of him being a snitch, and he doesn't have proof of me being a snitch. it's my word against his.
6:15:39 PM virus: he disappeared for a week, I don't recall what day
6:15:52 PM virus: but when he returned he said his grand mother died and that's why he was MIA
6:16:01 PM virus: after that he started offering me money to own people
6:16:14 PM Sam Biddle: anyone important?
6:16:55 PM virus: backtrace security and laurelai
6:17:22 PM virus: he gave me IPs, asked me to access their accounts with their IP and asked me to access their emails
6:17:25 PM virus: told me he would pay me
6:17:42 PM Sam Biddle: did you?
6:17:53 PM virus: no, I found that to be suspicious and declined...
6:19:19 PM virus: another reason why I believe he was converted after he disappeared and returned is everybody else started getting arrested one by one starting with ryan clearly, who was their ddos bitch
6:19:29 PM virus: yes, I believe he cut a deal to save himself
This August conversation jibes perfectly with Fox's report, who says Sabu began working for the FBI in June after they busted him—it's unclear what his fate is now. What is clear is the enormous grin of the feds, who have finally fired one back after almost a year of humiliations and runarounds from Anonymous brass:
"This is devastating to the organization," said an FBI official involved with the investigation. "We're chopping off the head of LulzSec."
Though LulzSec proper has been dormant since last summer, Sabu has remained a hugely influential character atop a vast cult of personality. The revelation that he's sold out the movement he professed to love so much will deal as much a psychological as logistical blow to Anon. After all, the guy tweeted this, only yesterday:
"The federal government is run by a bunch of fucking cowards. Don't give in to these people. Fight back. Stay strong."
Whatever you say, Hector. [FOX News]
Original Page: http://pocket.co/sGR5W
Shared from Pocket
It’s so trendy to be a hacktivist right now. It’s using devices in a devious manner to influence and steer thought. I don’t advise hacking for those not well-equipped to maintain their anonymity. Lone wolf hacktivism can create a lot of attention and enemies for someone that ultimately stands alone; thus requiring the alias. Realistically, there is no need to use any name unless you are publicizing your efforts or writing disinformation articles for inclusion as part of a campaign. Furthermore, there is no need to publicize your efforts to be an effective hacker. But what if continual manipulation of the effect was required to support an agenda?
Understand that I’m not comparing serial killers to hackers; I’m merely underlining an observation. Historically, criminal behavior has always been kept on the down-low. There have been exceptions of course like the Zodiac Killer which was very self-promoted and chatty. These criminals that feel the impulse for continual interaction with an audience are displaying a psychopathic egocentric behavior. I suppose that is common for an indulgent over-medicated population but it’s extremely dangerous when that behavior spreads by groupthink.
But is supplying your own hacker handle really just about ego? One upside to supplying an alias with your hack is that it acts as an initial keyword for investigators to focus on, and you can bombard them with disinformation you’ve previously supplied for that alias. If you leave your identity completely up to more labored investigative methods, there is little more than the facts for them to process. You can’t control their investigation if you don’t supply a source name to introduce disinformation from. There will always be facts for investigators to follow, so it’s smart to supply disinformation as well. Albeit, through several inconsistent proxy servers. This is an obvious tactic but communiqué from the perpetrator cannot go ignored.
For the past several weeks, I was following an alleged lone wolf hacktivist on Twitter by the name of @th3j35t3r. I’ve stopped following that account because I’ve completed my research for this article, but it has been very entertaining reading about hacks attributed to that alias. There was even a whitepaper written based on th3j35t3r’s adaptable utilitarian tactics. There is much complexity in th3j35t3r’s more notable accomplishments and based on my findings I’ve decided to refrain writing further about this hacktivist.
Debates regarding whether the Oxford comma should keep on being used are comparable to those about the death penalty and/or abortion. Seriously. Most grammarians have an opinion on the subject, and their opinion is always right and never wrong ever and also they will use an insistent voice when relaying it.
Go figure. Americans stand divided over whether to pronounce it "con-truh-VUR-see-yul" or "con-truh-VUR-shal." You don't even have to hop a plane across the pond to take part in the battle. Funny enough, Merriam-Webster's and The American Heritage Dictionary acknowledge both pronunciations. So now that a definitive answer exists, it's time to get back to arguing about whether to call it soda, pop, or coke.
Although grammatically correct, debates regarding the permissibility of double negatives keep flaring up from time to time. Talks apparently originated when linguists pondered acceptance of the often controversial African-American Vernacular English, within which the grammar tweak is quite common. Unsurprisingly, these debates inherently come saddled with some rather unfortunate overtones.
"Irregardless" appears in at least three different official dictionaries, though all of them admit it's not exactly formal. More traditional grammar aficionados don't think the word deserves to move beyond its slang origins, while others think it's about time the rule-makers acknowledge the evolution.
Here's one the grammarians out there just can't get enough of. Ending sentences with prepositions isn't actually incorrect, but teacher's gonna teach. The myth circulates so widely, 
Perhaps not as controversial as some of the other grammar rules presented here, people still mix up — and sometimes argue — over what situations require "hung" and which ones require "hanged." The latter works when describing executions and suicide, while the former works pretty much anywhere else.
Winston Cigarettes unintentionally ignited a pretty nasty grammatical furor back in 1954 with its use of like as a conjunction. Slogan "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" was once considered so egregious, many broadcasters (such as Walter Cronkite) refused to even read it on air. Further outrage ensued when dictionaries acknowledged that the company was not committing any grammatical error, even touting it as an example of proper conjunction usage. Suffice it to say, this isn't exactly much of a controversy these days.
Feel like setting off an unabashed grammar geek? Mix up "good" and "well" when talking health and happiness. Although not a major controversy splitting the 
Traditional grammarians consider Internet and text speak a portent of irreversible vernacular doom. Whether abbreviations, acronyms, the remaining shreds of 1337 5P34|<, or overusing punctuation and emoticons, its seepage into assignments and everyday conversations boils many a language buff's blood. That's evidenced by the fact that slow news days inevitably cover their bubbling rage.
Strunk & White loyalists pooh-pooh the thought of beginning a sentence with "however" when one really means "nevertheless." Everyone else just thinks them a bit outdated.
Like their "however" counterpart, "but" and "and" are actually perfectly acceptable ways to start a new sentence. Not every sentence, of course, but some flow even better when launched with a conjunction. Once again, detractors detract simply because of tradition.
English only involves one gender-neutral pronoun: "it," and many in the genderqueer community find the word either insulting or inaccurate. These individuals oftentimes create their own unique alternatives, though none have obviously entered the mainstream vernacular yet. In order to accommodate their desires, however, a gender-neutral pronoun needs eventual inclusion, which will prove a massive boon to LGBT equality and acceptance.
Yet another grammar rule students frequently find smashed into their heads that doesn't actually exist. Or, rather, its existence is rather dubious. Split infinitives jam an adverb between an unmarked verb and preposition — and they're perfectly acceptable. Just don't tell the teachers whose notes tell them otherwise, OK?
Hit up grammar forums across the Internet and witness the hordes defending passive voice. While technically grammatically sound, many writers think stigmatizing its usage compromises experimenting with the language.
Depending on the English-speaking nation, punctuation marks either go inside quotation marks (America) or outside (pretty much everywhere else). Considering the fact that this debate wages on an international scale, no further explanation is really needed.
Not every controversial grammar rule out there can brag that it managed to inspire legislation. In 2007, the Arkansas house voted to officially denote possessives as "Arkansas's" as opposed to the more standard "Arkansas.'" Needless to say, this not-at-all-arbitrary act drew its fair share of hissing from grammar purists offended by their apparent affront.
So yeah. After years of pressure, the AP Stylebook declared that "e-mail" should now be written as "email." And with that came the biggest controversy involving a hyphen since Mariner I. Because nothing in life is more serious than the correct abbreviation of "electronic mail."
With a name like that, how could this theory whip up anything but arguments? Usually attributed to influential linguist Noam Chomsky, the idea of universal grammar rules involves the cognition behind language structures. Its core concept posits that something in every human brain dictates grammar rules, meaning some elements remain static across even vastly different speakers.
Aside from the hyphen, most non-professionals (and probably even some professionals) don't know when to use each one. They kind of all look the same when one reads rather than copy edits — a phenomenon which, of course, detractors will constantly note.
Even more than "good" and "well," misusing "who" and "whom" is guaranteed to set a grammarian's sphincter on fire. "Whom" comes into play as the object of a preposition or the objective case, while "who" is a subjective pronoun. But they don't have to know you know.
