Posts Tagged ‘Essex’

Amazon APIs: Cloud Standard or Zombie Apocalypse?

April 12th, 2012 04:30 admin View Comments


FUD is a lot like commodity open source software. It just keeps moving up the stack. A decade ago, the FUD was all about operating systems and database software. Now? It’s migrated up to the cloud stack. FUD may be mobile, but it hasn’t gotten any prettier.

Case in point, the efforts of OpenStack supporters and Rackspace employees to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about competing platforms.

Amazon Zombies, Eh?

As mentioned last week, some members of the OpenStack camp have started attacking CloudStack instead of touting the wonders of the OpenStack Essex release.

Jim Plamondon, director of developer experience for Rackspace Cloud, has been on a particular tear, leaving comments deriding Eucalyptus and CloudStack as ‘zombie projects’. (Note, I contacted Plamondon directly via LinkedIn and verified that the comments are actually his.)

According to Plamondon, Amazon is using those projects “to achieve its strategic directives… Any firm that uses these zombies runs the risk of infection with the zombie virus, thereby risking disaster when Amazon slaughters its zombies in a future Cloud Zombie Apocalypse.”

At least he’s entertaining. Then again, Plamondon has had time to hone his delivery and studied at the feet of masters. Plamondon is famous (or infamous) for characterizing developers as “pawns” and says Amazon is “stealing a page from Microsoft’s ‘How to Build a Monopoly’ playbook (of which I wrote one small chapter, back in the 1990s).”

The Claims

Setting aside the colorful rhetoric, here’s how the claims boil down:

  • Implementing Amazon APIs is some sort of desperate ploy in reaction to OpenStack.
  • CloudStack and Eucalyptus cannot implement new cloud services, unless they’re implemented by AWS.
  • CloudStack and Eucalyptus are “controlled” by the APIs.
  • At some point in the future, Amazon will withdraw access to the APIs and “slaughter” the companies using them.
  • Companies that use either stack are “infected” by using technology that apes the Amazon APIs.

Let’s start with the first claim, that Eucalyptus and CloudStack are implementing Amazon’s APIs due to the “threat of economic death by the meteoric rise of OpenStack.” (Plamondon’s words, not mine, though I fixed his typo.)

Given that Eucalyptus started as a project to implement the Amazon APIs, this claim is easily proved wrong. Plamondon should know better, since some of OpenStack’s origins come from a fork of Eucalyptus.

Whether Eucalyptus or CloudStack are “threatened” by OpenStack is also irrelevant in considering whether Amazon’s APIs are good or bad for the projects or companies using them.

The next claim, that CloudStack or Eucalyptus cannot implement new services, is also off-base. What’s necessary for API compatibility is that they provide an analog to Amazon’s services using the same API. There’s nothing about using the Amazon APIs that precludes Eucalyptus or CloudStack from offering additional APIs or services that do not correspond with the Amazon APIs.

Case in point, see the Eucalyptus 3 product roadmap, which includes features above and beyond Amazon’s API. Eucalyptus features “AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) API Plus Extensions for On-premise Clouds.” Does this sound like an inability to implement new cloud services? It may be a modest extension, but it’s a feature set beyond what Amazon offers. Once again, easily disproved.

Plamondon should know this. Microsoft, after all, practiced and popularized the term “embrace and extend.” There’s no technical reason why a community cannot implement the AWS APIs and offer additional features.

Next is the claim that Amazon “controls” the companies with its APIs. There’s some merit to this, in that to stay compatible, the community has to keep up with changes in Amazon’s APIs. Further, there’s no indication that other organizations have a seat at the table when Amazon makes decisions about its APIs.

Having a standard controlled by a single organization is a totally legitimate concern. If the rest of the IaaS/PaaS vendors could sit down and agree on a standard set of APIs, the industry would be much better off.

Not surprisingly, Plamondon suggests that OpenStack is the “open API, openly designed and openly governed.” Lots of “opens” in there, and it’s certainly more open than Amazon’s process for creating its API. Then again, not everyone has been pleased with OpenStack’s governance so far. When OpenStack’s foundation takes shape and it’s clear the full OpenStack community is in charge, this argument will be more convincing.

Zombie Slaughter and Scariness

Finally, let’s consider the last claims – that Amazon plans to pull a Microsoft and remove access to the APIs, kill off the competing projects and force companies to move to AWS. Says Plamondon: “Only by preventing OpenStack from establishing a truly open cloud stack – with an open API and an open implementation, designed through an open process, openly governed – can Amazon establish the kind of Total Industry Domination that Microsoft attained in the 1990s.”

Plamondon cites Microsoft licensing Windows’ source code to third parties to thwart Sun’s efforts to provide a Windows compatibility layer to allow running apps developed for Windows 3.x on Solaris. Microsoft licensed Windows source code, until the contracts ran out and then it refused to license Windows NT 4.0 or 5.0.

But that is a very different scenario. Amazon isn’t licensing source code, it’s publishing the APIs and others are implementing them. Conceivably, Amazon could stop publishing updates to its APIs or try to slap restrictive terms on them. But the relationship between Amazon and others implementing its APIs differs significantly from Microsoft’s relationship with its licensees.

It’s unclear whether there’s any license agreement for the APIs between Amazon and CloudStack. The agreement that Amazon has formed with Eucalyptus is not public, and nobody’s talking on that one.

OpenStack also implements some Amazon APIs, as well. Presumably, Rackspace and the rest of the OpenStackers did not need to reach a license agreement with Amazon prior to implementing this.

Secondly, there’s not much evidence for the premise that Amazon will “slaughter” those implementing the APIs. Just because Microsoft was willing to engage in less-than-friendly practices to protect its dominance does not mean that Amazon will do the same.

An Amazon assault would most likely include a patent suit. If that’s the case, choice of API will matter very little. Amazon can sue Rackspace, the OpenStack Foundation or Citrix on cloud patents regardless of whether they implement the AWS APIs.

Look around a bit, and you’ll see plenty of software patent suits. You’ll also notice that if a company wants to sue a competitor for patent infringement, it doesn’t matter whether the other company is implementing any APIs. Consider the Microsoft suit against Barnes & Noble. It has nothing to do with implementing any APIs – merely that Android presents a threat to Microsoft, and Barnes & Noble has been unwilling to pony up licensing fees.

If Amazon wants to attack competitors, it can cite its patent for “managing access of multiple executing programs to non-local block data storage” or another one of its other cloud patents. It doesn’t need to prove that the infringement relies on implementing the AWS APIs.

By the way, this isn’t a suggestion. It’d be nice if the cloud industry could avoid the patent shenanigans roiling the mobile industry. But the notion that Eucalyptus and CloudStack are particularly susceptible to attack because they’ve implemented the Amazon APIs is shaky at best.


None of this should take away from the exceptional work that’s been done by the OpenStack community during the past few years. Despite the fact that the OpenStack community is still heavily dependent on Rackspace, it’s grown admirably and continues to improve. It’s a shame that anyone involved in the project feels the need to try to spread uncertainty and doubt about other open source projects.

Likewise, it would be unfortunate if these efforts succeeded in undermining Eucalyptus or CloudStack. If OpenStack offers a better alternative than Eucalyptus or CloudStack, then developers and companies should embrace it. Either way, the choice shouldn’t be driven by FUD.

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

Source: Amazon APIs: Cloud Standard or Zombie Apocalypse?

How Linus Torvalds Helped Bust a Microsoft Patent

March 29th, 2012 03:17 admin View Comments


New submitter inhuman_4 passes along this quote from an article at Wired: “Last December, Microsoft scored a victory when the ITC Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex found that Motorola had violated four Microsoft patents. But the ruling could also eliminate an important Microsoft software patent that has been invoked in lawsuits against Barnes & Noble and car navigation device-maker Tom Tom. According to Linus Torvalds, he was deposed in the case this past fall, and apparently his testimony about a 20-year-old technical discussion — along with a discussion group posting made by an Amiga fan, known only as Natuerlich! — helped convince the Administrative Law Judge that the patent was invalid.”

Source: How Linus Torvalds Helped Bust a Microsoft Patent

OpenStack Sandbox and API Reference Site Launched

February 17th, 2012 02:31 admin View Comments

OpenStack logoDevelopers working with OpenStack now have a Sandbox and one-stop shop for the OpenStack APIs. The site is “inspired by” sites like Twitter’s API resource page, and includes the OpenStack Identity 2.0, Compute 1.1 and Image 1.0 APIs. The OpenStack Sandbox provides a test environment for developers to use to try their code against.

Anne Gentle announced the OpenStack API reference yesterday to the OpenStack mailing list. It’s not 100% complete yet, Gentle says that Object Storage hasn’t been added yet. The site also doesn’t reflect non-standard extensions that may be used on some deployments, but is similar to the installation on the OpenStack Sandbox.

Jay Pipes announced the Sandbox yesterday on the OpenStack blog. Developers register for the service by joining the Facebook Group, and then receive a username, password and “Stack Dollars” for the sandbox. Says Pipes, “When you perform certain actions in TryStack – launching instances, creating volumes, etc – you consume Stack Dollars. Likewise, instances consume Stack Dollars as long as they are running. When you run out of Stack Dollars, you won’t be able to use TryStack services until your Stack Dollars are replenished.”

The refresh rate for Stack Dollars hasn’t been established yet, but the FAQ says “you should find you have ample credits available for almost any testing scenario. One tip: If the size of the server instances you launch doesn’t matter too much to your tests and experimentation, you’ll get more life out of your account by launching smaller instances. “

Developers also need to be aware that instances will only remain alive for up to 24 hours. (This is to keep the sandbox from being used “for evil” and to make sure everyone has an ample shot at sandbox time.)

The current Sandbox is based on OpenStack Diablo and lacks a Swift deployment. Another availability zone, using Essex, is planned for the OpenStack Sandbox “in the next three to six months.” This will be hosted in Las Vegas on HP hardware. Pipes also says that an installation of Swift object store is on the horizon, either as a separate availability zone or as part of the upcoming Essex deployment.

If you’re a Facebook-hater, a non-Facebook registration process is in the offing as well.

Given that Amazon has made available a free tier of AWS for some time, it’s probably a smart move on the Stacker’s part to have a free sandbox for developers to test against. Anybody signed up for this one yet? Let us know how the experience goes.

Source: OpenStack Sandbox and API Reference Site Launched

Brian Stevens on Red Hat’s Involvement with OpenStack

February 10th, 2012 02:30 admin View Comments

rhat-logo.jpgRed Hat has been involved with OpenStack development for some time. Unlike the bulk of companies involved, however, Red Hat has gone about its work quietly and without “officially” joining the effort. Red Hat still isn’t saying exactly what it hopes to get from OpenStack contributions, but Brian Stevens did divulge a bit about the company’s involvement.

Stevens is Red Hat’s CTO and vice president of worldwide engineering. Right now, he says Red Hat has no “confirmed” product plans for OpenStack but the company is “just finding additive ways where we can get involved in the community and help move OpenStack forward.”

Even though Red Hat isn’t saying what its intent for OpenStack is, Stevens says that OpenStack is “highly complementary” to other projects and products in Red Hat’s portfolio.

With the recently released Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization (RHEV) 3.0, we provide a community-backed solution (through the oVirt project) for enterprise-scale virtualization, which includes capabilities such as live migration, high availability, and dynamic scheduling with support for both virtual servers and virtual desktops (VDI) in a single open platform.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux with integrated KVM, when combined with OpenStack forms an interesting foundation for building enterprise or public IaaS clouds.

Our upcoming CloudForms solution will provide IT governance and lifecycle of application management across hybrid clouds including vSphere, Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization, and providers like AWS. Architecturally CloudForms sits above the IaaS layer.

Stevens also says that Red Hat is already seeing “early stage interest” around using OpenStack with RHEV and “in some cases are providing consultative support for our customers.”

Joining OpenStack?

RackSpace and the OpenStack community are currently thrashing out a plan to create a foundation around OpenStack. I asked Stevens if the company was involved in those discussions. Stevens says that the company has “publicly expressed some of our thoughts on how the governance for OpenStack could be modified to allow for, in our opinion, a meritocracy-based model that could result in an even more vibrant community.”

Stevens says that Red Hat would like to see a “lightweight and open” foundation, of which “there are many successful models in existence that could be emulated.” He pointed to the LibreOffice community, Apache/Hadoop, GNOME, and the Linux kernel community as examples of well-run communities.

Since Red Hat is already doing the hard part of actually contributing to OpenStack, why not actually take the step of joining officially? Stevens says that it’s more efficient.

“The way OpenStack has set things up, official joining is not a prerequisite to getting involved and helping,” says Stevens. “So instead of a press release, we chose to just roll up our sleeves. In some cases we find it more efficient to get involved in the actual technologies than in some of the commercial and marketing elements of open source efforts.”

Stevens says that it’s “early days” for OpenStack, but says that it’s “another example of collaborative open source development driving cloud innovation.”

The next OpenStack release is due on April 5th. It will be interesting to see which companies have put in the most to the Essex release, and how it turns out.

Source: Brian Stevens on Red Hat’s Involvement with OpenStack

OpenStack Ditches Microsoft Hyper-V

February 2nd, 2012 02:58 admin View Comments


judgecorp writes “The OpenStack open source cloud project has removed Hyper-V from its infrastructure as a service (IaaS) framework, saying Microsoft’s support for its hypervisor technology is ‘broken.’ This will embarass Microsoft, as major partners such as Dell and HP support OpenStack, along with service providers such as Internap.” Adds reader alphadogg, this “means the code will be removed when the next version of OpenStack, called Essex, is released in the second quarter.”

Source: OpenStack Ditches Microsoft Hyper-V

Red Hat Quietly Joins the OpenStack Effort

January 30th, 2012 01:58 admin View Comments

rhat-logo.jpgWord is that Red Hat refused to sign on to OpenStack when it was announced, because it didn’t like the governance model. Red Hat also has its own cloud management software projects. But the company that once dismissed OpenStack seems to be coming around. Look closely at the OpenStack community and you’ll find quite a few Red Hat engineers, including some that have become core contributors to OpenStack projects.

The OpenStack project has a lot of vocal supporters, but how many companies are really pulling their weight? When it comes down to it, many of the 147 companies that have declared support for OpenStack are doing not very much when it comes to contributing code. The flip side of that? There’s Red Hat, which was reported to decline signing up for OpenStack due to its governance model. But the company is contributing to OpenStack in a very real way.

During the conversation about Microsoft Hyper-V support being dropped from Essex, Wayne Wells made an off-hand comment about Red Hat “not actively participating in the OpenStack community.”

Officially, that seems to be true. Red Hat hasn’t said anything about participating in OpenStack. Its vice president and general manager of cloud computing didn’t have nice things to say about OpenStack. “You see a lot of people dabbling [in the open-source cloud], but the question is: When do we get real code and real contributions from third parties? There’s the OpenStack project that has a lot of people signing up, but when you talk to the people, the vast majority is the press release; a lot of people are keeping their options open.”

So officially, Red Hat is working on Aeolus as its IaaS solution. But it’s also contributing to OpenStack right out in the open. Red Hat’s Mark McLoughlin is a core contributor for Nova. You’ll also find Red Hat’s Russell Bryant, Pádraig Brady, Eoghan Glynn, Derek Higgins and others on the OpenStack mailing lists and contributing code.

Actually, it’s not surprising that Red Hat is contributing some code to OpenStack. The company uses some of OpenStack for Aeolus, but the level of contribution to OpenStack seems a bit higher than just passing back a few changes. Consider Cole Robinson’s reply to Wells’ comment on Hyper-V. Robinson replies that he wants to point out “Red Hat is definitely participating in the OpenStack community, there’s even a Red Hatter on the Nova Core team. Right now a lot of us are focused on making Openstack and Fedora work great together.”

Indeed, Robinson goes on to note that OpenStack is to be “advertised as a primary feature of the upcoming Fedora release” and the project is having an OpenStack Test Day on March 8.

It’s important to note that Fedora is not solely controlled by Red Hat. Features can go into Fedora that Red Hat has no interest in. However, Fedora is often used to test features before they make their way into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The number of Red Hat engineers that are spending time on OpenStack suggests that the company has indeed “joined” OpenStack even if they’ve not officially put out any announcements.

What This Means for OpenStack

The foundation announcement last year may have a lot to do with Red Hat’s new attitude towards OpenStack.

It’s unclear what this means for Red Hat’s Aeolus and other cloud efforts, but I think it’s a big step for OpenStack. If Red Hat has come around on OpenStack, that suggests to me that the project is much more likely to succeed. When will Red Hat come forward publicly about its plans with OpenStack? I’ve put a call in to Red Hat and will be following up as soon as possible.

Source: Red Hat Quietly Joins the OpenStack Effort

Microsoft’s Hyper-V Support Broken in OpenStack, Likely to Be Dropped from Next Release

January 30th, 2012 01:58 admin View Comments

Thumbnail image for OpenStack logoMicrosoft announced it had partnered with to support Hyper-V with OpenStack in October 2010. This was not long after the land-rush of companies clamoring to announce their support for OpenStack in the wake of its unveiling at OSCON 2010. It appears, though, that the folks in Redmond have lost interest in giving its customers support for using Windows Server Hyper-V to deploy OpenStack.

On Friday, January 27th, OpenStack’s Thierry Carrez sent a note to the developer list to remove “deprecated, known-buggy-and-unmaintained or useless feature code” from the Essex release.

One of the features Carrez would like to drop? Hyper-V, which Carrez says is “known broken and unmaintained.” I contacted one member of the OpenStack community who had been involved in Hyper-V support and was told the code for Hyper-V had not been touched since April 2011.

Ken Pepple gave a +1 in favor of dropping Hyper-V support. According to Pepple, “Hyper-V support is missing support for even the most basic functions – volumes, glance, several network managers, etc. We investigated it for our service, but found it only borderline functional.”

Whither Windows?

This raises the question of running Windows guests on top of OpenStack, particularly for shops that want support from Microsoft if they run into problems.

Ewan Mellor says that “if you want Microsoft to take a phone call, then you need a hypervisor with the Server Virtualization Validation Program (SVVP) certificate.” This means Citrix XenServer, Red Hat’s RHEV (KVM), Oracle VM, Novell’s SLES (Xen) or VMware ESX. Of those options OpenStack should work with a KVM or Xen-based hypervisor or VMware ESX/ESXi.

So companies will have no problem finding a hypervisor that will support running Windows guests on OpenStack. But they may wind up paying more for support for one of the platforms that Microsoft supports when they have perfectly good entitlements to use Hyper-V on Windows Server. was acquired by Citrix in July 2011, which might explain why Hyper-V support fell by the wayside.

In the interim, Microsoft has announced support for OpenNebula with Hyper-V. According to the OpenNebula blog a development version of its Hyper-V driver was released in October.

The Essex release of OpenStack is scheduled for March. Many of the OpenStack folks will be meeting at FOSDEM next weekend and I’ll be sure to catch up with some of them to see what else is happening in the Essex and “F” release (and beyond) of OpenStack.

Any readers that were planning on trying OpenStack with Hyper-V? Is this going to impact any deployments or tests of OpenStack?

Source: Microsoft’s Hyper-V Support Broken in OpenStack, Likely to Be Dropped from Next Release

What’s in Store for SUSE in 2012

December 12th, 2011 12:30 admin View Comments

suse.jpegIt’s been a long, strange trip for SUSE. What started in 1992 as a small German company (SUSE was an acronym derived from “Software und System Entwicklung,” or “software and systems development”) with a derivative of Slackware Linux became a mighty Linux distribution in its own right. Money problems led to a sale to Novell in 2003, which had its own share of troubles.

Finally Novell was sold to Attachmate in a deal that closed in April of this year. Attachmate then decided to spin SUSE off into its own business, and tapped Nils Brauckmann as president and general manager of the unit.

To get a sense what SUSE is in for in 2012, I talked to Brauckmann this morning. Brauckmann’s involvement with SUSE started with Attachmate’s purchase, so the first time we spoke was earlier this year just after he took over the role. This time I found him much readier to discuss details of the SUSE strategy, if not every minor product detail.

Cloud Focus

The big focus for SUSE in 2012 will be the enterprise server market, naturally. According to the platform lifecycle that SUSE provided today, expect to see SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 service pack 2 (SP2) sometime in the first quarter, and SP3 late in 2012 or later. SUSE Linux Enterprise 12? We won’t be seeing a major refresh until 2013.

SUSE announced its commitment to OpenStack in October, along with a development preview available via SUSE Studio. This includes the three major components in the Diablo release (Nova, Glance, and Keystone). Brauckmann wasn’t sure about specific contributions that SUSE would be making to OpenStack, but did say that the company plans to follow up with a second technology preview in Q2 of 2012. (The “Essex” release of OpenStack will come out in late Q1 if it sticks to schedule.)

When’s a SUSE-based OpenStack offering going to be production ready? Probably no sooner than Q4 of 2012, after the Essex+1 release of OpenStack. I asked Brauckmann if this was trailing the market a bit, considering that VMware, Eucalyptus and Amazon Web Services (among others) are already being widely used. Brauckmann says that they’re in conversations with SUSE customers and that they seem to be in sync with actual enterprise deployment plans for private clouds.


Though a minor update, SP2 should bring some important features to SLES. For example, in addition to the usual driver updates and such, Brauckmann says that SUSE will be rolling out btrfs support for copy on write (COW), checksumming and filesystem snapshots. They’ll also be providing support for Linux Containers (LXC) and YaST and Zypper (SUSE management and software management tools, respectively) will have features to manage system snapshots and rollbacks.

Though SUSE isn’t quite ready yet to host private clouds, the company is well under way with its plans to be a good guest in the clouds. Brauckmann mentioned the SUSE Studio 1.2 release earlier this year, and the ability to build custom versions of SUSE and openSUSE and deploy them directly to Amazon Web Services (AWS) from SUSE Studio. Assuming that companies want to deploy an OS with the application (instead of just deploying an application on a PaaS provider), SUSE is in a pretty good position here.

Another area that SUSE is in a good position, but you don’t hear much about, is embedded in storage devices and other appliances. For example, Brauckmann mentioned one major customer – GE Healthcare – that is using SUSE Linux for some of its medical devices. However, SUSE is essentially an invisible part of the system and doesn’t get a lot of notice for its role there.


One of the lingering questions over SUSE right now is the fate of its desktop offering, SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop (SLED). If you comb carefully through Novell and SUSE announcements from the last two years, you’ll find little if any mention of the plans for SLED. This morning, Brauckmann noted that when they were planning for products to focus on and products to discontinue, SLED fell… someplace in the middle.

Brauckmann says that the three focus areas for SUSE are “enterprise computing, cloud and cloud infrastructure, and integrated systems.” But when the question about what to stop doing, SLED didn’t make that list either. So SUSE will continue to “invest in the desktop,” but the lack of attention effectively ensures that SLED isn’t going to be a growth area for the company in 2012, and certainly not a focus area.

I also asked about SUSE’s commitment to LibreOffice, and Brauckmann hedged a bit about talking numbers. Since SUSE is no longer attached to a public company, they’re not obligated to provide any sales figures, Brauckmann noted. The company policy, he says, is not to provide numbers. However, when I pressed about LibreOffice’s general prospects he indicated that when averaged out it was a “slightly growing” portion of the SUSE business.

Brauckmann also specifically called out SUSE’s relationship with the openSUSE community, and noted that the company had been keeping its promises to support and work with the openSUSE community. Indeed, the openSUSE community does seem to be thriving these days. The 12.1 release, aside from the silly version bump (from 11.3 to 12.1 with no intermediate 12.0) is one of the best openSUSE releases in some time.

Going into 2012

Going into 2012, SUSE looks like it’s in a solid position. I don’t see any indication that SUSE is poised to try to take the crown from Red Hat, or make any risky moves at all. But it does seem like it’s in good shape to keep its share of the enterprise market and maybe start carving out a position as the preferred private IaaS on top of OpenStack. Since Red Hat isn’t one of the many joining the OpenStack chorus, it’s between SUSE and Canonical to carve out that market – if it appears. Given that SUSE has a long history with enterprise customers, they’ll have a good shot at a lot of that business.

It hasn’t been easy being green for many years, but it looks like 2012 is going to be a bit easier than the last few for SUSE.

Source: What’s in Store for SUSE in 2012

Essex Police Arrest Man Over Blackberry Water Fight Plan

August 15th, 2011 08:19 admin View Comments


An anonymous reader writes “Under the banner headline ‘Police reassure residents they are working to keep county safe,’ Essex police proudly proclaimed that they arrested a 20-year-old man from Colchester who ‘allegedly sent messages from a Blackberry encouraging people to join in a water fight.’ Having also made a number of arrests of people sitting at home on Facebook, Acting Assistant Chief Constable Mason wrote: ‘Police will continue to monitor social networking sites for unlawful activity.’” That’s some good police work there, Lou.

Source: Essex Police Arrest Man Over Blackberry Water Fight Plan

It Wasn’t Us: LulzSec Denies Involvement With Scotland Yard Arrest, UK Census Attack

June 21st, 2011 06:59 admin View Comments

After declaring war against all governments Sunday night in Operation Anti-Security (#AntiSec), hacktivist group LulzSec has spent all Tuesday morning in a battle repudiating various media claims, coincidentally all UK related.

In response to reports that one of their own was arrested by Scotland Yard in Essex, UK, the hacker group has tweeted, “Seems the glorious leader of LulzSec got arrested, it’s all over now… wait… we’re all still here! Which poor bastard did they take down?”

The group then countered the specific claim that the suspect, Essex nineteen year old Ryan Cleary, is involved with LulzSec with “Ryan Cleary is not part of LulzSec; we house one of our many legitimate chatrooms on his IRC server, but that’s it,” from the group’s official Twitter account.

“Clearly the UK police are so desperate to catch us that they’ve gone and arrested someone who is, at best, mildly associated with us. Lame.,” the account went on.

Apparently Cleary’s server is host to some of LulzSec’s IRC chatrooms but he himself isn’t a member according to the group.  The UK Guardian has also compiled what it claims to be a list of LulzSec members with no mention of Cleary.

There’s also no word on whether Cleary’s arrest was related to an alleged hack of the UK census, which was posted on Pastebin with the same ASCII art and format as other LulzSec hacks. The @LulSec Twitter account, which must be getting tired of this, denied involvement with that one as well, “Just saw the pastebin of the UK census hack. That wasn’t us – don’t believe fake LulzSec releases unless we put out a tweet first.” Thus far proof of the legitimacy of that attack has not surfaced.

“People should keep releasing fake LulzSec stuff. It helps filter out the peon masses from the respectable, fact-checking media outlets,” the group said on Twitter. Thus far Lulzsec has taken credit for attacks on PBS, Sony, the FBI,, the CIA and the online games EVE, Minecraft, League of Legends and more so granted it’s a little hard to keep track.

Word to media outlets reporting on this: When in doubt, check the @lulzsec Twitter account.

Source: It Wasn’t Us: LulzSec Denies Involvement With Scotland Yard Arrest, UK Census Attack