16 Arrested as F.B.I. Hits the Hacking Group Anonymous
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
...
When you have a decentralized group,” Ms. Granick said, “the question is, Are there big fish, and are any of these people big fish?”
No.
They're basically going to ruin a few kids' lives in order to deter other kids from "hacking" with things like LOIC.
They'll get probation is it's their first offense. Judges do have brains you know, and don't toss people in jail (or fine them) just because the prosecution wants them to.
But I doubt it'll go to trial. The prosecution will get lots of media out it (which is all they really want). Then they'll offer a plea bargain deal with probation, and that'll be all.
"The department identified the suspects in the California indictment as Christopher Wayne Cooper, 23, aka “Anthrophobic;” Joshua John Covelli, 26, aka “Absolem” and “Toxic;” Keith Wilson Downey, 26; Mercedes Renee Haefer, 20, aka “No” and “MMMM;” Donald Husband, 29, aka “Ananon;” Vincent Charles Kershaw, 27, aka “Trivette,” “Triv” and “Reaper;” Ethan Miles, 33; James C. Murphy, 36; Drew Alan Phillips, 26, aka “Drew010;” Jeffrey Puglisi, 28, aka “Jeffer,” “Jefferp” and “Ji;” Daniel Sullivan, 22; Tracy Ann Valenzuela, 42; and Christopher Quang Vo, 22. One individual’s name has been withheld by the court.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/19/exclusive-fbi-sear...
You can even DOS your own site with it and be fine. Just not someone else.
What if there are other sites/services are hosted on the same physical box?
It's not the severity of the punishment that deters from committing crimes, but rather the inevitability.
Now, with subscriptions, better pricing models, and streaming you have access to more music than you could possibly listen to in a lifetime. The lawsuits did have an impact, it made people more selective and secretive about their activities. Instead of torrenting off public trackers people went to private trackers, newsbin, or LAN sharing (the last option was especially big on university campuses).
Why download a song when u can do a quick search and listen instantly to whatever? I havent downloaded anything in years and use youtube on my desktop and iphone(pandora, last.fm, vevo and others too).
In the file sharing case consider what they need to prove: they need to establish that a file not only looks like it contains infringing material (e.g. a copy of a movie) but that it actually does. They need to prove that the defendant willfully downloaded the file at a particular point with the intention of violating copyright, which requires identifying the user via IP and establishing that the particular defendant's computer was using that IP at the time the transfer took place. In many such cases the defendant's computer has not been seized and can't be used as evidence.
Now look at the case for a LOIC DDoS prosecution. On the one hand you have the evidence from the targeted site, which consists of server logs, router logs, and ISP traffic logs which (as above) can tie the defendant to the DoS incident. On top of that you likely have IRC logs of the organization of the DoS, these even more uniquely identify the defendant since they include information unlikely to be duplicated on another user's computer. Also, because this is a felony criminal case it's likely that the defendant's computer's have been seized. That provides an additional depth of evidence, such as if the computer's have LOIC installed, if they still have local IRC logs which can be tied together with other evidence, etc. Additionally, a DoS attack has an unusual signature in that it represents a lot of upstream traffic from a client, there will be evidence of that signature in the ISP's logs and on the client computer itself (cached dns entries, up/down traffic data, etc.)
On the whole I think the DoS case is likely much easier to prosecute than the file sharing case, despite the higher burden of proof.
No, all that is needed to prove is "making available". Even if you ripped your legally purchased CDs, and then installed Kazaa, which then detected the mp3s on your computer, and then began sharing them, without your knowledge, you would still be liable.
Infringement really has nothing to do with intent unless you are attempting to argue fair-use.
IMO, these arrests will deter some, as intended. I think it'll also motivate coders/hackers to write more sophisticated tools--maybe something like bittorrent + TOR + LOIC, maybe with an installer fired off from an email attachment that'd only work if the user opened up certain ports.
Is the unnamed suspect (I would guess due to being a minor).
This seems to relate to refer to Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, § 1030, Part a) 5) A):
knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html
There was quite a bit of debate during the December DOS's about what you could even charge folks with. This seems to be their answer. You can indict for almost anything, though, as grand juries are notoriously easy especially in technical cases.
I find it hard to believe a judge would actually buy slowing a computer down equals damage. If that was the case people who maliciously search too often. Smells like plea bargain bait at best to me, what US Attorney would want to try that?
cough flash ads cough
Do people think any more? Yeah, driving a formula one car is, with the right skills, relatively simple.
Anything is simple from the perspective of the person who has invested time to learn how to do it.
But I suppose if we get hacked by other nations we'll just get our hackers together and with their mad elite skills, will stop them. right? right guys? Oh yeah, PS, America has a massive shortage of security experts, if you are interested in hacking, call the FBI, they need you.
Apologies for the source, every other source just points to this one at the moment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8649621/Teen-accu...
Seriously, you're defending DDoS attacks?
Personally, I find nonviolent resistance perfectly defensible for a just cause. Why do you suggest it's indefensible?
I also don't buy your argument that it's nonviolent. By DDoSing a site, your interfering in the legal activity of the target and some outside party. Apply that same principle to the real world and you suggest that it's perfectly reasonable for someone to trespass into a commercial establishment, obstruct the interactions of patrons with staff, and otherwise use resources that are set aside for paying customers.
Since I depend on the availability of these sites, I'm not so enamored with folks who interrupt MY work just for laughs. I'm doubly irritated with people who call it "justified". That smacks of one-sided righteousness and anarchy.
If you believe in your cause, show your face. Make your case.
I'm not defending the actions of the LOIC users, I don't think they are doing quite the same thing but it's close. If the balance of power is off then it is up to the community to try and put it back in place, as another commenter has posted one particularly successful method in the past has been the sit-in. Just as it's not ok for any mob to do whatever they want to a business, it's not ok for any company to do whatever they want to a community.
the question of whether these guys should have been arrested is distinct from whether they're justified, which is distinct from whether ddos could ever be considered civil disobedience.
Furthermore, lots of those folks get arrested. It's exactly the point that you force the state to take you into custody and deal with you as a means of overwhelming them with otherwise law-abiding citizens.
SO...I don't agree with your assertion that it's the same thing. It's a manifestly different thing.
I never stated that. Personally, I believe it's far more efficient and more ethical to use a court system and support your representatives than disrupt a business illegally. We have courts and representatives for grievances.
Sit-ins were a LAST resort, not the first. There was a long, long history of unequal treatment and oppression by the state before non-violent resistance was used. More importantly, there was a consistent and protracted political movement that was also underway during the period in question. There was a dialog happening and resistance was used to "encourage" one party to stay in that dialog. Even then, it took almost the entire weight of the federal government to ensure the execution of the will of the political majority long AFTER the decision had been made.
Honestly, I think that making comparisons to the civil-rights movement in the US is just beyond the pale.
Anonymous is a mob; Pure and simple. It's an expression of a small, small minority of people that want to do damage and seek to cloak their actions in civic high-mindedness. I don't believe it for a second. The absolute lack of ANYONE willing to speak for them just proves my point. They embrace mayhem without accountability. Anarchy.
Who wants to live in that world? Not I.
Example of it not being committed in the open, to no negated effect (and arguably greater effect): People anonymously posting "illegal keys" and cryptosystems for export on the internet for others to obtain. The often anonymous nature of their actions emphasizes how the current laws are absurd for being unenforceable when people with the right knowledge choose for them to be unenforceable.
I suppose it's arguable that Anonymous is acting out of a sense of "Civil Disobedience". Perhaps it's more along the lines of "vandalism". Philosophically speaking, that is.
Personally, I have no idea what motivates Anonymous or if they feel morally obligated to act. It's just as likely that they believe they can commit a crime without penalty. The actions of the FBI are, in part, to deter future individuals from participating in Anonymous coordinated attacks by reminding people that they are not that anonymous and there are consequences to one's actions.
Gandhi, King and other activists all were willing to suffer the consequences of their actions. They were motivated by a principle higher than blind obedience after all.
If I break your window, that's vandalism. If I burn down your home, that's arson.
DDoS attacks I've seen have completely shut down some major sites and had some pretty significant second-order effects. There are real dollars and real problems created for real life individuals who depend on the availability of these systems.
You can justify it all you like but civic action doesn't justify what these people do. It's mob mentality at work and it resembles a riot more than anything else. Innocent people get hurt in riots and no self respecting individual should be involved in one. Virtual or otherwise.
Seriously... please just stop posting. You are strictly putting words in his mouth so you can have something to argue with.
You are free to disagree with the opinion of the DDoSers that PayPal punished Wikileaks because of close ties with a vindictive government and therefore deserved a tangible reaction, but you can't go arguing that people should only disagree with you to the extent that you are able to ignore them.
Explain what "mobbish" means in the context of my comment. Because I disagree with your position, my comment somehow resembles 'mob' behavior?
"you can't go arguing that people should only disagree with you to the extent that you are able to ignore them"
What does that even mean? Sorry, but that's one huge straw man attack for something I didn't state. You're free to have your own opinion. I did not state otherwise.
Further, you state that I am free to disagree with an opinion, but then you state that I cannot have some opinion that you conjured up some argument on your own to misrepresent my position -- and then attacking that distorted position?
I wasn't entirely satisfied with the word, but it was close enough. I meant that the words you (and others I read before) chose were of the polarizing variety, the kinds that people end up using in mobs. That is to say, instead of describing the situation at hand, I felt you were describing the closest clearly illegal thing someone could quickly think of, probably because your information was third-hand.
It seemed to me that you felt that the thing these DDoSsers did wrong was that they had an impact on the business of PayPal directly, rather than just the PR of PayPal. Well no, it seemed to me that you wouldn't have agreed with vocal badmouthing either, but that that would have resulted in an entirely different chain of events and so is not worth considering carefully.
If your opinion was not that no company's business should be directly manipulated for policy retribution purposes, I misunderstood. It was my intent to assert that this is not a position I consider valid and that the choice to briefly DDoS PayPal was almost certainly taken after considering less and more radical approaches. I saw no evidence towards the positions I do consider valid, that the retribution was overly severe or wholly unjust.