March 9, 2012
Prior to the takedown of the hacker group LulzSec, the group’s leader – who turned out to be an FBI operative – told a reporter from the Guardian he may or may not be connected to the CIA.
Last July, baited by an accusation that he worked for jihadist Muslims, he engaged in an internet chat with journalist James Ball.
Ball did not post excerpts from his conversation with Hector Xavier Monsegur, aka Sabu, the leader of LulzSec, until after members of the group were arrested for their hacking activities and it became known that he worked for the FBI.
“Sabu began by denouncing the Guardian’s publication of the vague allegations of the supposed Islamic links of the hacker community,” Ball writes. “Then he switched tack, asking why the paper hadn’t published rumors linking him to the CIA, arguing that would amount to an equivalent and equally inaccurate allegation. Given what we know now, the swerve is particularly noteworthy.”
After denying he worked for the CIA, Sabu told Ball it would make sense from a false flag perspective if “a rogue group of hackers suddenly began attacking national interests — spawning a massive overhaul of internet security, theoretically.”
Ball writes that “what’s interesting is Sabu’s internal reasoning for why – hypothetically at least – a compromised organization (as we know now LulzSec was) might be allowed to continue.”
LulzSec was allowed to continue precisely for the reason Sabu mentioned – to provide the propaganda narrative required for a government push for draconian cybersecurity legislation.
James Ball makes the argument for us. “From June to March this year, he – and his FBI handlers – were party to details, often in advance, of hacking attacks including the interception of an FBI conference call, and the seizure of 5m emails from the servers of UK intelligence firm Stratfor, which are currently being published by WikiLeaks.”
Cover story: Sabu was flipped by the FBI.
Sabu did not admit that he worked for the CIA. But it is interesting an FBI operative would tell a journalist that it makes sense for government to roll out a cyber false flag in order to push for more restrictive laws designed to control the internet.
It’s a classic example of Diocletian’s problem-reaction-solution.
Government creates a problem through a false flag event – taking down servers, stealing emails and passcodes, and taunting the authorities – and after eliciting public fear (for example, hackers may shut down the power grid) they devise a solution that basically kills the internet goose that laid the golden egg.
This article was posted: Friday, March 9, 2012 at 7:04 am