Anonymous Pittsburgh

UPDATE: Trial for Six Defendants from Occupy The Courts Arrests

Washington DC – After three days of trial and six hours of deliberation the jury has returned the verdicts on the six defendants facing charges from the arrests at the United States Supreme Court on January 20, 2012.

The six defendants – David Barahona, 21 (TX), Robert Cruz, 47 (CA), Taylor Hall, 23 (PA), Thi Le, 20 (WI), Andrea Rea, 63 (MD), Will Silvester, 21 (CT) – were all arrested on January 20, 2012 after allegedly parading and unlawfully entering the Supreme Court of the United States grounds during a protest against the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. For the first time ever, relating to these charges, a trial by jury was granted by the Court.

Trial commenced on Monday, August 27, 2012. There were 13 charges total – six counts of Parades, Assemblages, and Display of Flags in The Supreme Court Building and Grounds, six counts of Unlawful Entry of The Supreme Court, and one count of Simple Assault on a Police Officer.

The prosecution, Travis Hill and Melanie Devoe, presented their case with five witnesses – Ethan Flick, Amanda Baker, Nathan Mishkin, Vanessa Torroella, and Anthony Dziak – all Supreme Court officers. The defense counsel consisted of George Lane, Ann Wilcox, Mark Goldstone, and defendant pro se Thi Le. They followed with their case by calling seven witnesses to the stand – Shellie Frisina, Fitzgerald Scott, and defendants Barahona, Hall, Le, Rea, and Silvester.

The prosecution argued the defendants were a part of a procession that went up to the top of the Supreme Court steps. Hill and Devoe reinforced the use of “mic checks” as a form of group communication. They further argued that people had signs and were chanting on the steps even after being warned to leave by police officers.

On August 29th, Judge Gerald Fisher granted a motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) for the charge of Unlawful Entry of the Supreme Court Grounds because the prosecution failed to prove that the grounds were lawfully closed. This meant that six of the total 13 charges have been acquitted – one per defendant.

The defense argued that the police removed themselves from the police line, therefore allowing people up the steps. The defense also argued that none of the defendants were holding signs, banners, or devices while on the Supreme Court steps.

On August 31st, the jury returned the following verdicts on the charge of Parades, Assemblages, and Display of Flags in The Supreme Court Building and Grounds:
D. Barahona – Guilty, R. Cruz – Not guilty, T. Hall – Not guilty, T. Le – Not guilty, A. Rea – Guilty, W. Silvester – Guilty.
Additionally, R. Cruz was found not guilty on the charge of Simple Assault on a Police Officer.

Barahona was convicted for meditating on the stairs and for testifying that “I stood up by sitting down;” Rea was convicted for running up the steps; Silvester was convicted for failing to leave within a minute after a warning was issued. They were sentenced with 20 hours of community service or a $200 donation to a charity.

The defendants and defense counsel are claiming a victory in this case for the following reasons: They presented their case to a jury; Judge Fisher dismissed one of the charges for each of the defendants because the prosecution failed to prove their case; and more than half of the charges were acquitted.

Barahona, Rea, and Silvester plan on appealing their cases.

Facebook #J20 #OccupyCourts Trial
Twitter #J20Trial

This is not our official video for #OpActivision, that is in development. We do in fact support this message, and motives.

Brothers and Sisters of #Anonymous, #OpActivision is here. Help spread the word about Phase One. This will be something that the world needs to see. If you have any ideas, please join our forums, and join the conversation.

Brothers and Sisters of #Anonymous, #OpActivision is here. Help spread the word about Phase One. This will be something that the world needs to see. If you have any ideas, please join our forums, and join the conversation.

anonmedics:

Call of Duty: Black Ops II will apparently feature Anonymous as enemy terrorists, hinting at as much in two promotional videos released this week.  Kotaku reports:

A series of documentary style clips tackle different elements of technology and warfare; in two of them, the Guy Fawkes mask appears on screen.
In a clip titled “Synopsis”, Oliver North talks about his nightmare scenario, and when he says, “The enemy could be anywhere, and it could be anyone,” an individual wearing a Guy Fawkes appears on screen. I don’t worry about the guy who wants to hijack a plane,” North continues. “I worry about the guy who wants to hijack all the planes.”
In another clip, titled “When the Enemy Steals the Keys,” the Guy Fawkes mask pops up again. The footage is slightly different — it’s tighter, more of a close-up.
“You know, if there are guys out there who are smart enough to hack into our banks and people’s personal information, then certainly, eventually, there’s gonna be someone who’s smart enough to hack into our aircraft,” drone pilot Major Hercules Christopher says in the clip. “If you can hack a bank, you can hack a drone.”
The moment the pilot says “gonna be someone who’s smart enough”, the Guy Fawkes mask once again appears on screen, seeming to insinuate indirectly that Anonymous members are going to be smart enough to hack drones — or even want to. Once again, the Guy Fawkes mask is cast as the enemy.

We assume Vivendi has already anticipated, and adjusted for, the massive drop in sales that may result from so unimaginatively and dully vilifying their player base, and that they have secured their corporate servers from any objections that may arise to such ham-handed misrepresentation.
More troubling than the Fawkes iconography is the blithe use of known war criminal Oliver North as a spokesman for “peace” and “freedom”.  The Kotaku commentors have this one in the bag:

May 2, 2012 at 10:39 PM
Was this the same Oliver North who sold guns to Iran to finance the actions of the Contra rebels in Nicaragua? The ones who regularly killed and tortured civilians?
The enemy could be anywhere, and he could be anyone, he says…

anonmedics:

Call of Duty: Black Ops II will apparently feature Anonymous as enemy terrorists, hinting at as much in two promotional videos released this week.  Kotaku reports:

A series of documentary style clips tackle different elements of technology and warfare; in two of them, the Guy Fawkes mask appears on screen.

In a clip titled “Synopsis”, Oliver North talks about his nightmare scenario, and when he says, “The enemy could be anywhere, and it could be anyone,” an individual wearing a Guy Fawkes appears on screen. I don’t worry about the guy who wants to hijack a plane,” North continues. “I worry about the guy who wants to hijack all the planes.”

In another clip, titled “When the Enemy Steals the Keys,” the Guy Fawkes mask pops up again. The footage is slightly different — it’s tighter, more of a close-up.

“You know, if there are guys out there who are smart enough to hack into our banks and people’s personal information, then certainly, eventually, there’s gonna be someone who’s smart enough to hack into our aircraft,” drone pilot Major Hercules Christopher says in the clip. “If you can hack a bank, you can hack a drone.”

The moment the pilot says “gonna be someone who’s smart enough”, the Guy Fawkes mask once again appears on screen, seeming to insinuate indirectly that Anonymous members are going to be smart enough to hack drones — or even want to. Once again, the Guy Fawkes mask is cast as the enemy.

We assume Vivendi has already anticipated, and adjusted for, the massive drop in sales that may result from so unimaginatively and dully vilifying their player base, and that they have secured their corporate servers from any objections that may arise to such ham-handed misrepresentation.

More troubling than the Fawkes iconography is the blithe use of known war criminal Oliver North as a spokesman for “peace” and “freedom”.  The Kotaku commentors have this one in the bag:

May 2, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Was this the same Oliver North who sold guns to Iran to finance the actions of the Contra rebels in Nicaragua? The ones who regularly killed and tortured civilians?

The enemy could be anywhere, and he could be anyone, he says…

Reblogged from AnonMedics

THIS IS WHAT FACEBOOK SENDS THE POLICE WHEN THEY COME ASKING FOR YOUR INFORMATION

(source: http://superchief.tv/theycanseeeverythingyoudo/)

The Boston Phoenix’s recent article on the Craigslist killer uncovered something very interesting in it’s research into how the web hunt for the killer was conducted; something neither it’s reporters, or the general public, had never seen before: The full results of a Facebook subpoena.

This is some scary stuff; for the first time, we can now see EXACTLY what Facebook sends when the Police, or a judge, ask them to hand over your information (view the full file here):

This is what it looks like:

Apparently, it’s a LOT of paper – three months of (fully comprehensive) Facebook data, in this case, adds up to 71 printed pages.

All Wall Posts and Shares

This is obvious, since these are more or less public anyway. Also, the subpoena was executed before Facebook Timeline and News Feed came out. A file compiled today would probably be a lot longer (and harder to read).

All your friends (and enemies)

The file also contains a list of the friends you still have as well as the ones you’ve deleted. Facebook, like a lot of web services, has a full memory of all your actions — the friends, the unfriends, the likes, the shares. Facebook is a million little bells that you can’t unring, at least as far as police investigations go.

All Your Photos

Public, private and even deleted.

Your ENTIRE Facebook Browsing History

When you click on someone’s profile, it’s logged. Other Facebook users don’t know you’re looking at their profiles, but Facebook itself most assuredly does. Or rather can, if the police come asking. (Every time you’ve looked at your ex’s profile? In there. Every. Single. Time. And you’re being judged for it. As you deserve to be.)

This is far from the first subpoena Facebook has cooperated with, just the first we’ve been able to look at. Here’s what the site says about its policies for cooperating with law enforcement:

We work with law enforcement where appropriate and to the extent required by law to ensure the safety of the people who use Facebook. We may disclose information pursuant to subpoenas, court orders, or other requests (including criminal and civil matters) if we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law. This may include respecting requests from jurisdictions outside of the United States where we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law under the local laws in that jurisdiction, apply to users from that jurisdiction, and are consistent with generally accepted international standards. 

(Pretty much completely cribbed from Buzzfeed’s post – but yeah, just like when Gothamist sold that dude who said Ray Kelly should be shot down the river, just goes to show you that “free speech” on the internet is a dubious thing at best, and a complete trap at worst; and the most awful part of it is YOU ASSHOLES ARE GIVING YOURSELVES AWAY by being jackasses on the internet, without them even having to SET a trap for you. They don’t have to do a god-damn-thing.)

(Oh and for fuck’s sake, change your name on Facebook)