Anon releases FBI conference call

Discuss

31 Responses to “Anon releases FBI conference call”

  1. Fang Xianfu says:

    Can we have a direct link to the video please? Embeds don’t always play nice on mobile devices.

  2. Sapa says:

    So fbi dont encrypt or look over their shoulders therefore probably not terrorists

    (referring to earlier post -FBI tells net cafe owners that TOR users might be terrorists)

  3. millie fink says:

    Yeah, mebbe not a good idea to shove a sharp stick in their eye like that.

    • Guest says:

      Unless, of course, Anonymous have more than sticks to shove in more than eyes, metaphorically speaking.

      The literal shoving of things into actual places is much more FBI/CIA than Anonymous.

  4. I hate conference calls, somehow the quality of connections is always miserable, there’s all kinds of non relevant stuff being discussed and you just hang in there hoping its over soon. Kind of like in-person meetings, just with more worse.

    Meetings, the unproductive alternative to working. Telephone conferences, the even more unproductive alternative to meetings.

    • MB44 says:

      You mean you don’t like catching up to make sure everyone’s on the same page? Ironing out the details? A quick meet to get our ducks in a row? Discussing how things are going to play out? Having a quick sit-down? Getting some face-time?

      • I’m not the first to notice that meetings are useless for makers (people who get stuff done)

        - http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/meetings_considered_harmful.php
        - http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html

        But it’s not just that they’re disruptive (which is bad enough in itself). Most people can’t “meet” properly. There’s a fine (but simple) methodology behind it which is firstly based on these observations:

        1) The more people you get into a meeting, the more expensive it gets. Say 10 people in a 2-hour meeting, costs you about 1000$ in salary directly, and another 2000-5000$ in disruption of said makers.
        2) The longer a meeting takes the more expensive it is.
        3) The more people are in a meeting, the harder it is to talk trough anything, which leads to either just two people talking, and the others being annoyed to have to be there, or more people talking, and everybody annoyed at not getting anything done.

        So there’s a simple plan to solve this issues:
        1) If you can avoid doing a meeting, don’t do a meeting.
        2) If you have to make a meeting, only do it with as few people as possible.
        3) Keep the meeting as short as possible.
        4) Prepare an agenda for the meeting and send it to the participants beforehand.
        5) Keep the agenda short.
        6) Don’t do many meetings
        7) Don’t missuse a meeting for socializing, this debases any attempt at getting anything done.

        So looking back at 15 years of working in IT, I don’t think I’ve had a single meeting/telephone conference that would’ve done it right. In fact, it’s really hard to do right. So if you can’t do meetings right, you just shouldn’t do meetings at all.

        That telephone conference call of the FBI is a perfect example of how not to do it. Btw. you’ll be glad to know that you (the taxpayer) are wasting money to get your civic servants to spend time in the verbal equivalent of a 2 hour coffee break.

    • Mujokan says:

      You will never make the cover of Meetings Magazine.

  5. AudioTherapist says:

    Although I didn’t find the comment after a bit of jumping around on the audio timeline I would just wish to come to the defence of Sheffield which is really rather lovely.

    So There

  6. Can someone tell me what time the Scotland Yard folks say “pip pip”?

  7. Petzl says:

    Anon apparently hacked an email account that gave info on how/when to call in to the conference call. Odd that their conference call had such lax security.

    favorite quote:
    MI-5 agent: “steam… some sort of gaming site”

  8. RickB says:

    It is reassuring the Met still can’t distinguish between Sheffield & Birmingham, less chance of them leaving London and murdering people, framing minorities or covering up Rupert Murdoch’s crimes in the rest of the UK that way, though condolence to Londoners who have to deal with them daily.

  9. yosemite says:

    When in the beginning the British chap is talking about the ACPO cyber conference in Sheffield, and says that “John Greeves(?)” would be speaking, I first heard it as “John Cleese”, especially after he added “a true, sort of old school detective, mad as a box of frogs”.

    John Cleese should always be the keynote speaker at every international intelligence conference.

  10. Nothing Much says:

    Fascinating how they mention the USAF as analyzing heard drives. Has that been tested in court as admissible evidence?

  11. Jar Sqwuid says:

    Anon thinks they can’t be caught. Somebody is going down. Anon is a load of fools, jesus….

    • fallcon says:

      Someone might go down, so what? Anon is bigger than the individual, that’s the whole point. Cut off a limb and it’ll grow back. I’m just shocked at the umm, what’s the word, seriousness of this particular pwnge incident. 

      It’s one thing to deface websites and release email addys, but they actually intercepted a private meeting between NATO country intelligence agencies. I’m bloody impressed.

  12. LinkMan says:

    Around 13:20 is he talking about a hacker named “pornsauce?”

  13. Blaise Pascal says:

    anyone catch the reference to National Lampoon’s “European Vacation”? 

    the beginning..when they quickly discuss cheese…

    the Griswalds (Griswolds?) are in the U.K…in a hotel..and the only thing on t.v. are docu’s about cheese.

  14. ddob says:

    The only thing worse than conference calls is listening to them on the Internet.

Leave a Reply