# Th3j35t3r: Hacktivist Extraordinaire



## Yoshi (Sep 6, 2013)

Not sure how many of you know of th3j35t3r but I have been following his work for some time. Aside from shutting down WikiLeaks and those westboro baptist church douche bags from time to time, he regularly blocks radical Islamic websites with proprietary software. Hacktivism as a whole is extremely diverse with a lot of it bordering or crossing the line into cyberterrorism. J, as he is sometimes referred to, is at the very least a vigilante with no rules except his own to abide by. Until he is captured/killed I assume he will continue to deal out his own(in my opinion correct) brand of justice. What is your opinion on J's actions and how he may or may not be justified? 

Links of interest:
His blog
His twitter

Discuss/


----------



## Rapid (Sep 6, 2013)

Do what you think is right, just be ready to accept the consequences. I don't think the gov will put much of a priority on going after someone who takes down websites affiliated with Haj and traitors, though.


----------



## alibi (Sep 6, 2013)

Rapid said:


> Do what you think is right, just be ready to accept the consequences. I don't think the gov will put much of a priority on going after someone who takes down websites affiliated with Haj and traitors, though.


Apparently, he's gotten signed SWAG from the military investigative agencies.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 6, 2013)

He's like a superhero...  righting wrongs without being a member of a police or security agency...  no further comment. DOL.


----------



## TheSiatonist (Sep 6, 2013)

An article about him: Meet the Mysterious Mr. th3j35t3r

What the heck is DOX'ing? Anonymous splatters his name and face for the world to see: Tom Ryan


Man, I knew was somehow involved in all this!


----------



## AWP (Sep 6, 2013)

Hacktivism is a two-way street. As evidenced above, once you go down that path you become a target. TheJester is a cyber Batman and I agree with Rapid that as long as he's taking down bad guys, our gov't will do little to stop him. We have to understand that what he's doing is also illegal and that his actions will have consequences. The real danger with a guy like him is that he could potentially target something and it blows up in our face. Cynically one could wonder if he's taking direction from a gov't official...


----------



## Scotth (Sep 6, 2013)

You don't get to shutdown websites and then try to claim your for free speech.  Free Speech includes idiots like the Westboro Baptist.  Julian Assange and all the Westboro idiots could die in a flaming car crash and the only thing that would change for me is the cocktail I drank that night in celebration.

But this guy doesn't get to claim he is about free speech when he tries to stop the people he disagrees with from expressing their views.  He is no different then the guys that went after the Marine Corp website other than who they target.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 6, 2013)

TheSiatonist said:


> What the heck is DOX'ing? Anonymous splatters his name and face for the world to see: Tom Ryan


"DOX'ing" refers to the release of embarrassing or incriminating documents (the "dox", in this case) onto the internet.


----------



## Rapid (Sep 6, 2013)

Scotth said:


> You don't get to shutdown websites and then try to claim your for free speech.  Free Speech includes idiots like the Westboro Baptist.  Julian Assange and all the Westboro idiots could die in a flaming car crash and the only thing that would change for me is the cocktail I drank that night in celebration.
> 
> But this guy doesn't get to claim he is about free speech when he tries to stop the people he disagrees with from expressing their views. * He is no different then the guys that went after the Marine Corp website other than who they target.*



Then he's totally different, because the entire thing revolves around who they target and what their goal is. Shutting down people who are doing harm is not the same as shutting down people who are simply stating opinions. I don't think I need to remind anyone that 'freedom of speech' doesn't actually give you the right to use it in a way that can endanger others, in most countries. In fact, it doesn't even give you the right to slander, let alone endanger people or compromise national security.

You can argue about the validity of the WBC targetting, but Wikileaks, really? Distribution of stolen classified material doesn't fall under free speech, since the "speech" was supposed to be restricted to begin with.


----------



## alibi (Sep 11, 2013)

Hopefully no "Tango Down's" coming this way.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 11, 2013)

Hmm. I think its all fine and dandy until he gets busted (if its only one person). Breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless if it may or may not be for a good (something I would support) reason. 

What I have found is that most "hackers" don't seem to agree with their punishment when caught.

As for @Scotth I agree, its hard to claim you are a supporter of free speech, when you attack others ability to utilize their forums of.public speech, etc. However, I'm not sure where that was coming from? I didn't read all the content linked in this thread. Is this guy claiming that his actions are free speech based?

I'm all for people with IT/OS skills fucking with the websites that spread hatred or that leak sensitive government documents. I'm also for law enforcement officers enforcing the laws.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 11, 2013)

JAB said:


> Is this guy claiming that his actions are free speech based?



Here is what they say on the wiki page:


> *Hacktivism* (a portmanteau of _hack_ and _activism_) is the use of computers and computer networks to promote political ends, chiefly free speech, human rights, and information ethics.[1] It is carried out under the premise that proper use of technology can produce results similar to those of conventional acts of protest, activism, and civil disobedience.
> The term was coined in 1996 by a Cult of the Dead Cow member known as "Omega".[2] However, similar to its constituent word _hack_, _hacktivism_ is an ambiguous term (computer _hacking_ is tied to several meanings).
> The terms *hacktivism* and *hacktivist* are the subject of *lexical warfare* to define them. Some definitions of these terms include acts cyberterrorism while others stop with the use of technology hacking to effect social change.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism

These guys think what they are doing is noble as long as they go after people they disagree with.  If the NSA or FBI hacked their operation to find out who was doing what it would be the most egregious thing to ever happen.


----------



## alibi (Sep 11, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Here is what they say on the wiki page:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism
> 
> These guys think what they are doing is noble as long as they go after people they disagree with.  If the NSA or FBI hacked their operation to find out who was doing what it would be the most egregious thing to ever happen.



Yeah, in my limited experience a lot of self-proclaimed hackers are hardcore narcissists.  

I do remember reading something by the Jester (may have been an interview) where he acknowledges that what he does is illegal and is prepared to accept the consequences.  So there's that.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 11, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Here is what they say on the wiki page:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism
> 
> These guys think what they are doing is noble as long as they go after people they disagree with.  If the NSA or FBI hacked their operation to find out who was doing what it would be the most egregious thing to ever happen.



I read a lil bit of Jester's blog, apparently he is a former soldier and is only attacking organizations that are enemies of the United States (I.e. Islamic jihad recruitment sites, information leakers, etc). I don't think he is trying to politically influence or make a political statement. More or less, seems to be using his skill sets to attack or disrupt our enemies.

The only real issue I have with it, is who gets to PID and authorise his attacks? There is a reason we have.people in government, who are given the cyber-war tasks. Although oversight by our government can be a pain in the ass and many cases hinders successful and appropriate actions, I do believe it is necessary.

Again although I personally have.no problem with this guy fucking up some jihadist wannabes day, or limiting a leaks exposure. I also think laws should be followed, regardless if the law may be viewed in some circles as unreasonable. Is it reasonable to want to attack jihad recruiting websites? Sure, I think it is. However, as posted above, be prepared to take the punishment of breaking the law.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 11, 2013)

I'm not taking a position either way on the legality of what he's doing.  But if his actions are having a net negative impact on our nations' enemies, then I wish him well.


----------



## ShadowSpear (Sep 11, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm not taking a position either way on the legality of what he's doing.  But if his actions are having a net negative impact on our nations' enemies, then I wish him well.



Agreed.

...not to mention, why deal with all the red tape that all the "authorized" personnel go through when you don't necessarily have to. 

A sad and discouraged (or dead) Islamic extremist = a happy ShadowSpear .


----------



## AWP (Sep 11, 2013)

My grandfather was a young teen at the end of Prohibition. One day he was out hunting (kids, hunting used to be something you did so your family could eat, not so you could put a formerly living hat rack on your wall) and walked upon a still. Good old boys never left their work unmanned while a batch was cooking, so grandpa knew he was being watched. He said he glanced around the little camp and found the pile of firewood. He walked over, put a log on the fire, and kept walking as if nothing ever happened.

I first heard that story when I was about 10 and have never forgotten the lesson.


----------



## CQB (Sep 12, 2013)

I've followed him on twitter for some time and it's ALWAYS interesting.


----------



## Isiah6:8 (Sep 12, 2013)

I don't know the legality of any of it but I enjoy the end results so far.  

There is something to be said and learned from the body of work he has done and way in which he has gone about doing it.  

In certain jobs and certain fields I would think having narcissistic qualities could be a potential benefit, especially those which the end result requires wading through some gray areas.  

Those who have worked with him in the past have appeared to keep their mouths shut on who he is, which speaks to the quality and character of himself and the people he has worked with.


----------

