Internet Loons Declare Me An #Anonymous #Hacker LOL!

Well I guess that settles that question.

If Heather Martin, a registered nurse at St. Pauls Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and other Internet Loons declare me an Anonymous Hacker then it must be true. Lol.

After all, they allege:

1. that they are all 'thorough' researchers 
2. have a veritable treasure trove of links, and documents that they and other Internet Loons produced 
3. which they share amongst each other

which say so.

Of course, according to their circular logic, that is 'evidence' and makes their allegations true because, after all, they can reference each others bullshit.

This argument is based on the logical fallacy, Argumentum Ad Populum which simply states: "If many believe so, it is so." 

Of course, the flaw in that statement should be obvious here. Everyone used to believe the world was flat and we know that isn't true. In fact, a lot of people believe in a lot of stupid things. If we assumed they were all true just because a lot of people believed them, we'd still be living in caves.

And people wonder why I call them irrational Internet Loons. Lol.

Seriously.

Why is their demonstrated looniness even a question? Is it that human beings are lacking in a general ability to engage in rational thought processes by default?

I think so and I think this is a serious failing in our educational system.

EVERYONE should be taught logical argumentation skills from the time they can speak. It can be done and it should be done or I see very little hope for the survival of the human race.

Seriously.

The kind and quantity of sheer ignorance that gets flogged on the Internet daily and that some people eagerly lap up and spew everywhere is absolutely astounding.

Maybe we should consider licensing people before they're allowed to have blogs? A required Pass in a course on logical argumentation could be the ticket in. Lol.

Anyway, according to their loony logic, given that,

1. I am in IT (I'm a web and software application developer)
2. I support the Anonymous concept

therefore I am an Anonymous Hacker. Lol.

This is like saying (Example 1):

1. All toasters are items made of gold.
2. All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
3. Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

Or to be more specific (Example 2):

1. All people in IT are Hackers
2. All Hackers are Anonymous
3. Therefore, all people in IT are Anonymous Hackers

BOTH of the above examples have statements that are known in logical argumentation as valid logic. That is, the conclusion (3) logically follows the premises (1 and 2).

So, as you can see by example 1, logic can be valid, even if it is based on statements that are untrue.

"It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well." --IEP. Validity and Soundness [in logical argumentation]

And to the idiot, the premises will be assumed to be true therefore the conclusions are presumed to be true.

Herein lies the difference between the intelligent critical thinker and the ignoramus (who can, should and might be willing to learn) or the stupid (who is incapable of or self-servingly refuses to learn).

Whether these irrational Internet Loons who are alleging that I'm an Anonymous Hacker fall into the category of ignoramus or stupid is solely in their hands. I have no control over which they demonstrate, by their own actions, to be. Only they can do that.

All I can do is provide the education and information which will help to educate those interested in learning and that is what I'm doing here.

Now, as you can see, in the demonstration above, valid logic, while it's certainly logical, isn't necessarily true if the premises aren't true. It can be false. It can even be completely nuts unless you think toasters are actually time machines. In which case I'd have to say that you were nuts.

That's why logical argumentation doesn't just require validity. It also requires soundness.

A sound logical argument is one which uses both valid logic (the conclusion follows logically from the premises) AND the premises are demonstrably true.

This is where the irrational Internet Loons fail in all their allegations. In many cases, they are sort of capable of making claims which on the surface might appear to make sense or appear to have some truth to them but as soon as you scratch the surface a little you expose the filthy inner lining of irrational looniness because the premises are false. That is, they intentionally don't or can't present sound arguments.

Their goal is just to fabricate some bullshit that sounds good and that thoughtless people might buy rather than to present truth. The purpose of that goal is defame and discredit those they target with their bullshit.

A sound logical argument about people in IT and Anonymous hackers would look like the following:

1. Some people in IT hack
2. Some people in IT support Anonymous
3. Some people in IT might be Anonymous Hackers

Does this logic support the allegation that people in IT are Anonymous Hackers?

Of course it doesn't.

It supports the allegation that those people in IT who hack and who support Anonymous might be Anonymous Hackers not that they are Anonymous Hackers.

If you replace the term, 'Some people' with my name, does it support the allegation I'm an Anonymous Hacker?

Of course it doesn't.

In order for the logic to be sound, you'd have to have evidence that I hack. The fact that I publicly support Anonymous isn't enough. BOTH premises have to be demonstrably true for the conclusion to be true and argument (allegation) logic to be sound.

Since I have publicly stated that I don't hack and since there is no evidence that I'm lying (you'd need actual demonstrable proof of my alleged hacking not some paranoid unproven accusation), the statement is flagrantly obvious bullshit and most likely intentional lies.

Even if someone fabricated evidence that I hack (and that's what they would have to do since I don't), the statement is still can't be perceived as being necessarily true. The conclusion can still only be that I might be, not that I am, unless there is demonstrable evidence of me participating as a hacker in an Anonymous Op. That evidence would also have to be fabricated since I haven't participated in any Anonymous Ops as a hacker.

Given that some of these Internet loons actually have a proven and demonstrated history of fabricating evidence in order to support their false allegations this is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Of course, my specialty is to expose their lies, fabrications and frame-ups which I have done successfully and repeatedly on my Cyberharassment and the Cyberbullies blog. The loons hate this blog and claim that I'm targeting 'innocent' people on it despite the fact that it contains a great deal of evidence, much of it hard evidence and some of it irrefutable evidence. Lol. This is the real reason they hate it.

If you want to have a good laugh you can read all about their lame attempts at frame-ups and deceptions and watch how I expose their lies using forensic technology and critical reasoning applied to evidence openly available on the Internet or provided to me by others.

sound arguments both start out with true premises and have a form that guarantees that the conclusion must be true if the premises are, sound arguments always end with true conclusions. --IEP. Validity and Soundness [in logical argumentation]

In my company blog I've provided an excerpt from a very good article which defines the different groups of people in IT, what they do, and what the differences are between the groups including the difference between web and software developers like myself and hackers. There's also a link back to the full article which is interesting and worth a read.

A Coder, a Programmer, a Hacker, a Developer, and a Computer Scientist walk into a Venn Diagram from Hanselman.com

Here's an excerpt of the excerpt. Lol.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CODER, A HACKER, A PROGRAMMER, A DEVELOPER, AND A COMPUTER SCIENTIST?

These words might all mean the same thing to you. Perhaps you hear geek, nerd, and dweeb, but we all know these have very important differences. Knowing the differences also can give you a sense of how deep you want to go on your coding adventure.

• Coders - Can pretty much figure out it. It'll work, but it won't be pretty.
• Hackers - usually low level folks, skillful, with detailed understanding of some area deeply, often scarily deeply.
• Programmer - Write code and understand algorithms. Often work alone and well.
• Developer - Are the best generalists, can use lots of different systems and languages and get them to talk to each other. Are true and broad professionals, work with people, and communicate well.
• Computer Scientist - Need to be able to prove how computers work, at a theoretical level. Are usually math people also.

Hacktivist Byron Sonne Free At Long Last!

I'm not going to repeat the comments that everyone is making about the injustice that Byron Sonne was subjected to. So let's just say that the Judge at his trial ruled that he was innocent.

Here are links to some articles with excerpts from  one that provide details of the history of this case and good commentary and analysis of what occurred.

Congratulations, Byron!

The Verdict Is In ~ Byron Sonne is free by Laurel Russwurm

"Now that there isn’t a publication ban . . .

It’s safe to talk about things I learned at Byron’s preliminary hearing.

CSIS has what they call the “Open Source” program, which doesn’t mean software which allows users to access the source code (the usual meaning) but rather this is a program to spy on Canadians online.  The officer testifying about this program stressed that they only spy on citizens in the “public” parts of the internet, so while they may be reading your Facebook status, he claimed they don’t delve into our “private messages” without a warrant, although he gave the impression that they could if they wanted to.

Still, I find this warrantless invasion of the privacy of private citizens in a democracy more than a little bit creepy.  When they pass C-30 they will be legally allowed to take the next step into our private communications, also without a warrant.

Something else bothered me even more, something said by one of the law enforcement witnesses.  I’m not sure if he was from CSIS or had just worked with them to find information about Byron,  but he testified that CSIS had been unable to crack the TrueCrypt encryption on one of Byron’s computers.  Because of this, he testified, Byron would always be a person of interest to CSIS — even if Byron was acquitted.

I couldn’t write anything about that then, because of the publication ban, but that attitude makes a mockery of our  justice system.   After facing everything that law enforcement could throw at him, Byron has been cleared.  The Crown spent nearly two years trying to prove Byron guilty, spending untold tax dollars trying to transform speculation into evidence, and failed.

I am happy that Byron is now free to rebuild his life.  It was great to hear that his CISSP certification was restored in record time.  And I’m happy that this is the last time I need to write about Byron, so that I can spend more time writing about fictional characters.   I expect I won’t need to write about Byron again until it’s time to plug the book about this mess he plans to co-author with Denise Balkissoon."

*   *   *

"It was the only reasonable legal outcome, but the idea that CSIS or the police might continue to harass Byron Sonne is of serious concern.   Byron Sonne is no longer only presumed innocent, he is now legally innocent.  And innocent Canadians should not have to worry that Big Brother is looking over their shoulder.

MacLeans “Byron Sonne cleared of all charges” by Jesse Brown
Open File: “Byron Sonne, found not guilty on all charges, has plans for the future” by Denise Balkissoon
Chris Olah’s Trial Notes: Byron’s Trial, Verdict
Toronto Star: Byron Sonne not guilty on G20 explosives charges
The Grid: Judgement day for Byron Sonne ~ Nearly two years after he was first arrested on G20-related explosives charges, the Forest Hill resident was freed today following a tense, two-hour hearing.
Security Memetics: Parody song (to the tune of “Sesame Street) “In celebration of #freebyron”"

Creative Commons licence

Hactivist Byron Sonne: Comment by a friend

Kevin Brown, posted the following response to my previous blog, Hactivist Byron Sonne: Justice Delayed, on the Facebook page set up by friends of Byron Sonne: Free Byron Sonne. 

It was so good that I asked and received permission to copy and publish it to my blog. 

Thanks Kevin for your very insightful comments.

Kevin Brown:

"Regarding the incredible issue of bail being denied for 330 days, I would add, as an example of just how unprecedented this is, the case of Vakhtang Makhniashvili (Mariam's father).

Vakhtang stabbed his neighbor with a kitchen knife (came very close to killing him) on a Friday and was released on bail the following Monday! Bail amount for the attempted murderer was $50,000 (compare that to the $250,000 Bail Byron had to post ! for his crime of uploading video's of the convention centre to YouTube!)

There can be absolutely no justification or basis in law for a judge to deny Byron bail within day's of his arrest. The judge who denied bail request was corrupt - plain and simple! She was just doing favors for the police and crown without any regard for the rule of law. The judge has no integrity and she should not be sitting on the bench but she doesn't have to worry, judges are never held to account in Canada. Unlike the U.S. where the media are not afraid to criticize judges, in Canada the media consider judges to be above reproach.

In the attempted murder case above where the suspect received bail within days - his Lawyer was the former top crown prosecutor - Calvin Berry. Berry has many friends on the police force, the crown and the bench and you can see how his cozy connections ensured that his client was given as smooth a ride as possible! (he would go on to stab two more people while out on bail awaiting trial!).

If the judges involved were doing their jobs why wasn't the entire case thrown out after the preliminary hearing? Most of the charges were thrown out but the judge left in a few bogus charges , again doing a favor to the police and prosecutors, a face-saving measure so that they are not left with egg in on their face.

As for the latest charade, where the police made a huge spectacle out of recovering a harmless chemical buried in a back yard - if the judge was doing her job she would have cited the participants for contempt of court. This was not only a harmless chemical (used in high school chemistry labs) we have PROOF that the Police KNEW it was harmless because we can see (in videos) that the officers that lowered the canister into their special "hopper" wore NO protective equipment whatsoever (save for Oakley sunglasses).

Despite the FACT that police KNEW this material was completely harmless they went to great lengths to stage this elaborate theater in an effort to influence the decision of a judge.

If this happened in the U.S. , where they take the law more seriously, I have no doubt that senior police officials (Tam Bui?) would be facing contempt of court charges!

Cases like this remind me why we need to get camera's in our courtrooms. Somehow I think that if the actions of the players inside our courtrooms were to be held up to scrutiny we would see far less corrupt conduct.

Hopefully in making her decision this judge will follow the rule of the law and will not be swayed to find some wrongdoing (however minor) just so the police and crown are not left with egg on their face."

Byron Sonne Hacktivist on Trial

Byron Sonne’s trial is currently in progress and I have been following it as closely as I can without actually being there. I blogged on this issue during the G8/G20. 

Byron Sonne is a hacktivist who was black box testing the security surrounding the G8/G20.

I initially thought that Sonne had been recruited to participate in the Dirty Tricks campaign that I believe occurred at the time. However, friends of Sonne contacted me and assured me that I was wrong and that Sonne was an innocent victim.

Note that there is now evidence coming out that my general assessment of what occurred during the G8/G20 in 2008 was actually a direct result of a Dirty Tricks campaign,was correct even though it appears that I was wrong about Sonne.

If the media keep digging I don’t doubt the rest of the story could be revealed. If they don’t well then an opportunity to expose some pretty ugly corruption will have fallen by the wayside. Of course, the fact that Elliott was the Commissioner during that period also means that much of the evidence could have been destroyed or fabricated to be intentionally misleading.

Based on what I’ve seen to date I would have to agree with Sonne’s friends about his innocence.

I publicly admit my error and apologize to Sonne.

It appears that their trust in their friend was well founded. Sonne does indeed appear to be an innocent victim of this particularly ugly Dirty Tricks campaign, and I thank his friends for calmly and rationally presenting their case and giving me the time to evaluate it based on it’s own merits.

One of my reasons for saying that Sonne appears to be an innocent victim is the published interrogation of Byron Sonne by Tam Bui. There are several things that become obvious in that interview and indicate that Bui was trying to make a lot more out of Byron’s actions than the evidence itself indicated. His questions about Byrons attitudes and beliefs towards the Jewish community as well as the one's related to an alleged conspiracy were baseless because there was no evidence to support them.

June 23, 2008: First interrogation of Byron Sonne by Tam Bui

June 26, 2008: Second interrogation of Byron Sonne by Tam Bui

Given that a Ms. Bich Bui is a donor to Mount Sinai Hospital (a relative of Tam Bui?) one has to wonder if Sonne was arrested and held without bail, simply because Tam Bui and/or his personal friends held a personal bias based on nothing more than Sonne downloading a document.

One has to wonder if they held a personal bias which resulted in Sonne unjustly being held in prison without bail for three hundred days and charged for numerous offenses for which there was no evidentiary foundation?

If anyone bothered to research Sonne and read his online stuff it’s pretty clear that he isn’t antisemitic. Unless one thinks that reading something automatically means that the reader must believe it or agree with it.

That would be a pretty absurd conclusion for a presumably experienced lead police investigator to come to and one would have to question his competence if he did that.

Was Sonne simply being punished because someone, somewhere came to baseless and therefore wrong conclusions about his political beliefs and decided to make him pay irrespective of his clear and unambiguous explanations in the interrogations?

It's Ontario. Why wouldn't that surprise me.

(Please note that the above is not a commentary on the good people of Ontario. It is directed towards a specific circle in the wealthy elite here who has effectively bought the Liberal government and for whom the Liberals work exclusively at the expense of not only other members of the wealthy elite but the citizens of Ontario).

Sonne’s trial can be followed on the following site: Free Byron Sonne!

LulzSec–I am amused (chuckles)

Honestly. LulzSec is hilarious and in the process of their amusing merry-making they also happen to be making a very serious and important point.

They’re doing this because they can.

And the point that they’re trying to get across is that our data isn’t secure which puts the public at serious risk.

It’s a message that should be taken seriously.

Note that they are White Hat hackers. They did nothing illegal with the information like selling it to unscrupulous third parties. They simply hacked, provided the evidence that they hacked, how far they got with the hack,  publicized the hack, and lastly publicized what could have happened to the data had they been Black Hat hackers.

Like Anonymous, LulzSec appears to be a socially responsible hacking group and one that’s trying to give the Information Technology industry the push it needs to deal seriously with the security of online data and computer systems.

It’s a message which hasn’t taken despite the recent criminal and black hat hacks of government and corporate systems within the last few years, some of which have threatened the national security of governments like Canada when our financial systems were hacked this year.

At least part of the problem is the fact that government and corporate entities don’t really understand how these violations occur thereby leaving themselves open and vulnerable, often without realizing it.

I’m not a hacker but being in IT, I understand the process of hacking. I have to in order to write software code which at least attempts to block it. 

Of course, I make no guarantees, because I can’t, and neither can any other software developer. If one does, they’re lying to you. There’s always going to be a hacker out there who is better at breaking our code than we are at writing it, no matter how good we are. In addition, we have to balance security requirements with ensuring that the functionality requirements are met, some of which, by their very nature make the code less secure.

The best that we can do is minimize the threat by writing code that is difficult to break.

Serious hacking (not Script Kiddies who pick up malware online and distribute it) requires two components:

1. A high degree of hardware and software knowledge. (Technical engineering)
2. A high degree of social knowledge of the target to be hacked (Social engineering).

Serious prevention must have strategies for managing both of the above processes.

Probably the most important security point to remember is that the biggest threat doesn’t come from outsiders but from insiders.

It’s insiders that have both the Technical and Social knowledge required by outsiders to perform a successful hack. Whether those insiders are innocent dupes, criminals who have been bribed, or part of the black hat hacker team is irrelevant to the fact that they will have contributed to the insecurity of the system. It would, of course, be relevant if they were caught in order to determine what kind of charges should be laid.

So, when a Government MP or Corporate CEO, for example, has been either knowingly or unknowingly comprised and hires an Employee Recruitment firm based on the wrong reasons, that MP or CEO, may well have just opened the door to allowing their government or corporate data to be compromised.

And the insiders aren’t always, or even usually, the IT people.

Receptionists and Cleaning Staff are lucrative targets because:

1. They are generally poorly paid.

2. Receptionists have Social Engineering knowledge that would be useful to hackers as well as a log in/password to the system.

3. Janitors have access to all of the physical areas of the building which could allow them to attach hardware to server and computer systems which could be used to compromise them as well as provide hardware information.

Other regular employees are not immune either. Employee groups like Customer Service (client information) or HR (employee information) have access to information that would be considered confidential. They can provide log ins, useful social engineering information, or in many cases the actual data, to the hacker group which could be used to compromise the rest of the system.

If IT people are compromised, there is generally no need to hack the system because it’s already completely compromised from within, since they have direct access to the data and can do pretty much whatever they want to do with it.

There are ethical technical and social solutions to all of these problems that do not involve violating civil rights and are not draconian in nature.

Unfortunately the tendency appears to be to go with the draconian solutions which almost always involve civil rights violations, making employees feel untrusted and targeted or requiring all kinds of high level (and frankly useless) security clearances. It’s really a shame but that tends to be the direction that those who continue to cling desperately to the old-fashioned and out-dated Security and Intelligence Cold War psychological model, appear to prefer.

In my opinion, none of the alert parameters that they apply or look for make one iota of difference in terms of preventing these types of  organizational compromises. They just make the “suits” feel like something is being done and gives them something to tell people, thereby creating a sense of false security which contributes to the worsening of the problem.

And as long as that is the model out there in the IT Security and Intelligence World, LulzSec, Anonymous, and other White Hat Hackers  will continue to have a lot a fun at your expense, and the Black Hat Hackers will continue to seriously compromise our systems.

Now that they've attacked Canadian Federal financial systems what's next? Do we even know if they've hacked other Federal systems like the RCMP or Provincial Government systems like Ontario's eHealth, OPP, Provincial Financial systems?

On a personal note, while I do take all of the important steps to protect my systems security, my focus isn’t really on preventing anyone from hacking my system but rather on catching them. I don’t have insiders on my system but if I did, that would apply to both insiders and outsiders.

More fun that way for me but then, unlike most users, I have the technical skills to do it ;-D.

And so does the IT world.

Just a thought ….