PDA

View Full Version : Judge jails Anonymous 'hacktivists'




itshappening
01-24-2013, 06:53 PM
TWO men from notorious hacking group Anonymous were jailed today for carrying out cyber-attacks which cost one website £3.5MILLION.

Christopher Weatherhead, 22, from Northampton was given an 18-month sentence for conspiring to impair the operation of computers.

Ashley Rhodes, 28, from Camberwell, south London, was handed seven months for the same charge.

The self-styled “hacktivists” targeted websites as part of their Operation Payback because they did not agree with the companies' views.

Visitors to websites including Mastercard, PayPal and Visa were routed to a page with the message: “You’ve tried to bite the Anonymous hand. You angered the hive and now you are being stung.”

Peter Gibson, 24, from Hartlepool, admitted playing a lesser role in the conspiracy and was given a six-month suspended sentence.

Jake Birchal, 18, from Chester, has also admitted conspiracy and will be sentenced later.

Prosecutor Joel Smith said it was a “persistent campaign” designed to “cause damage, financial losses and Press exposure”.

Judge Peter Testar said: “It is intolerable that when an individual or a group disagrees with a particular entity’s activities they should be free to curtail that activity by means of attacks such as those which took place in this case.”

However, he also noted that their aims were not to cause permanent damage or to steal information from the sites.

He said: "The purpose was not commercial. It was activity by way of protest."

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4761488/anonymous-hacktivists-jailed-for-cyber-attacks.html#ixzz2Iwb6oh00

tod evans
01-24-2013, 06:59 PM
Speaking out against the government soon to be a crime.......

SpreadOfLiberty
01-24-2013, 06:59 PM
Let em rot in there a little while

pcosmar
01-24-2013, 07:04 PM
"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it"

paulbot24
01-24-2013, 08:01 PM
This operation was in response to the paypal,visa, and mastercard's decision to no longer process donations to wikileaks. Why would those three credit giants decide to sever the means to give donations to a site that is dedicated to exposing corruption? Well I think you already have your answer. The presiding judge, Judge Peter Testar made this eloquent statement about it: “It is intolerable that when an individual or a group disagrees with a particular entity’s activities they should be free to curtail that activity by means of attacks such as those which took place in this case.” Well, hell, thank god we have these intolerable guys locked up so we can go back to government corruption married to corporate cronyism. You know business as usual. That server downtime was just freaking intolerable wasn't it?

twomp
01-24-2013, 08:18 PM
Let em rot in there a little while

Yes, defend the government. They know what is best for us.

SpreadOfLiberty
01-24-2013, 08:43 PM
Yes, defend the government. They know what is best for us.
I hate people that destroy other's property, especially little nerds in their moms basement who have never done an honest day of work in their life.

wrestlingwes_8
01-24-2013, 09:33 PM
I hate people that destroy other's property, especially little nerds in their moms basement who have never done an honest day of work in their life.

You are so pathetic, it makes me sick

pcosmar
01-24-2013, 09:37 PM
I hate people that destroy other's property, especially little nerds in their moms basement who have never done an honest day of work in their life.

Your forum alias is a lie.
You are NOTHING but Authoritarian.

These are Prisoners of War.

paulbot24
01-24-2013, 09:43 PM
I hate people that destroy other's property, especially little nerds in their moms basement who have never done an honest day of work in their life.

So you're saying they're bureaucrats, they're just too young to know it? Exactly what did they destroy? The servers were not damaged, it temporarily delayed processing transactions, which, using some miraculous algorithm, they were able to calculate to 3.5M Pounds Sterling. The real question here should be why would private sector corporate credit giants decide to stop processing donations to a website dedicated to exposing public sector government corruption?

wrestlingwes_8
01-24-2013, 09:45 PM
Your forum alias is a lie.
You are NOTHING but Authoritarian.

These are Prisoners of War.

QFT!!

SpreadOfLiberty
01-24-2013, 09:46 PM
Your forum alias is a lie.
You are NOTHING but Authoritarian.

These are Prisoners of War.

Good. They should stop attacking people and they wouldn't be taken prisoner.

Yes I am a statist because I believe criminals should be stopped.

ClydeCoulter
01-24-2013, 09:47 PM
I hate people that destroy other's property, especially little nerds in their moms basement who have never done an honest day of work in their life.

They work, alright, the likes of which few have seen.

SpreadOfLiberty
01-24-2013, 09:48 PM
I guess I could try to hack RPF, oh but never mind that isn't justified because it isn't an evil corporation.

purplechoe
01-24-2013, 09:49 PM
Good. They should stop attacking people and they wouldn't be taken prisoner.

Yes I am a statist because I believe criminals should be stopped.

I don't think you have a clue what a criminal is...

paulbot24
01-24-2013, 09:49 PM
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

SpreadOfLiberty
01-24-2013, 09:51 PM
Did I miss something? Were the nerds not trying to destroy property?

It's anonymous for a reason, because they should be ashamed that they attack people for a living instead of earning an honest wage.

paulbot24
01-24-2013, 09:53 PM
A DDoS attack does not destroy anything or anybody. The article actually spelled that one out for you in crayon. How do you know they don't have jobs? They are all adults too in case you missed that one too.

SpreadOfLiberty
01-24-2013, 09:56 PM
A DDoS attack does not destroy anything or anybody. The article actually spelled that one out for you in crayon. How do you know they don't have jobs? They are all adults too in case you missed that one too.

There are more types of aggression than killing.

The last thing we need is IDIOTS messing with sites that involve a lot of money.

pcosmar
01-24-2013, 10:01 PM
Did I miss something?

Apparently.
They were fighting back on behalf of a long time freedom fighter.

Donations to the cause of freedom (and truth) were being hindered by these corporate entities.
Yes,, it is a war.. though not with bullets and bombs. Not yet.

purplechoe
01-24-2013, 10:01 PM
The reason I'm sympathetic to this group in this case is because of what these companies did. They took the money that was donated to wikileaks and held on to it because they disagreed with what the group was doing. It would be another thing if these companies just straight up said that we won't be accepting donations to the group, it's another to hold on to money donated by others. That is theft, just like Bank of America has been doing recently to gun shops...

pcosmar
01-24-2013, 10:02 PM
The last thing we need is IDIOTS messing with sites that involve a lot of money.

At least you know where your priorities lie.

maybe a name change is in order.

paulbot24
01-24-2013, 10:03 PM
Do you even know what a DDoS attack is? It doesn't glean any credit card information and cannot be used for any kind of identity theft. It is not taking any information and no money could ever be moved or stolen. But you know all this already, because you are no IDIOT now are you?

SpreadOfLiberty
01-24-2013, 10:04 PM
At least you know where your priorities lie.

maybe a name change is in order.

I am defending liberty, you are defending aggression. Take your pick.

SpreadOfLiberty
01-24-2013, 10:06 PM
Do you even know what a DDoS attack is? It doesn't glean any credit card information and cannot be used for any kind of identity theft. It is not taking any information and no money could ever be moved or stolen. But you know all this already, because you are no IDIOT now are you?

If it is so harmless why did they do it?

It isn't. It cost one website 3.5 million.

They know they are doing wrong thus they are anonymous, for they should be ashamed and know they will be punished for aggression.

paulbot24
01-24-2013, 10:06 PM
I am defending liberty, you are defending aggression. Take your pick.

You are defending your naive opinion, nothing more.

purplechoe
01-24-2013, 10:07 PM
I am defending liberty, you are defending aggression. Take your pick.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater

pcosmar
01-24-2013, 10:07 PM
I am defending liberty, you are defending aggression. Take your pick.

The hacktivism of Anons has always been against aggressors.
A fine tool,, short of a howitzer.

SpreadOfLiberty
01-24-2013, 10:07 PM
You are defending your naive opinion, nothing more.
You are an internet Marxist apparently.

However Josh would disagree that it is all common property for all.

SpreadOfLiberty
01-24-2013, 10:09 PM
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater

I never saw him smashing DNC windows.

pcosmar
01-24-2013, 10:11 PM
It isn't. It cost one website 3.5 million.


GOOD.
Being stupid should be costly. I will be glad when they are all out of business. (though I will have to wait for Christs return)

These greedy fucks give capitalism a bad name.

SpreadOfLiberty
01-24-2013, 10:12 PM
GOOD.
Being stupid should be costly. I will be glad when they are all out of business. (though I will have to wait for Christs return)

These greedy fucks give capitalism a bad name.

You either know or respect NOTHING about property rights or libertarian justice seeking. And I am supposed to get a name changed.

BTW-They are f'ing idiots to attack paypal, Thiel is the biggest donor.

paulbot24
01-24-2013, 10:14 PM
If it is so harmless why did they do it?

It isn't. It cost one website 3.5 million.

They know they are doing wrong thus they are anonymous, for they should be ashamed and know they will be punished for aggression.

Do you know how much money in donations they froze and eventually kept for themselves in the process? Of course, those guys don't call themselves anonymous because need not worry about shame because they are too rich for that.

pcosmar
01-24-2013, 10:19 PM
Thiel is the biggest donor.

Paypal blocked money to Wikileaks.
If Thiel was a donor,, why was he Blocking donations to a site exposing government corruption?

SpreadOfLiberty
01-24-2013, 10:20 PM
Do you know how much money in donations they froze and eventually kept for themselves in the process? Of course, those guys don't call themselves anonymous because need not worry about shame because they are too rich for that.

How much?

Is it not their right to?

paulbot24
01-24-2013, 10:38 PM
Why would it be their right to hold on to funds donated to wikileaks? Why would they, as financial institutions, even care about wikileaks and their quest to expose government corruption and want their donations stopped? Give me an honest motive. Try me.

WarAnonymous
01-24-2013, 11:45 PM
Good. They should stop attacking people and they wouldn't be taken prisoner.

Yes I am a statist because I believe criminals should be stopped.

I need to remember this quote... So when the government determines you a "possible threat" under the NDAA section 1021 and you get to go rot in prison forever, no one will feel bad because you are determined a "criminal." When the TSA touches your wife or kids, can't feel to bad about it, don't come here to complain. They are only trying to stop a "criminal act."

Your arguments make no sense...

Tpoints
01-25-2013, 12:06 AM
Did I miss something? Were the nerds not trying to destroy property?

It's anonymous for a reason, because they should be ashamed that they attack people for a living instead of earning an honest wage.

maybe not destroy property, but definitely to disrupt commerce and cause financial loss. You have a point, if what they did was neither illegal nor immoral, why didn't they do it openly and proudly?

Tpoints
01-25-2013, 12:07 AM
Paypal blocked money to Wikileaks.
If Thiel was a donor,, why was he Blocking donations to a site exposing government corruption?

I don't think Thiel has been involved with PayPal for a while, and also, it probably wasn't PayPal per se, but the credit card companies themselves.

Tpoints
01-25-2013, 12:11 AM
GOOD.
Being stupid should be costly. I will be glad when they are all out of business. (though I will have to wait for Christs return)

These greedy fucks give capitalism a bad name.

what is the stupidity you want to punish them for? and how much is enough?

pcosmar
01-25-2013, 12:20 AM
maybe not destroy property, but definitely to disrupt commerce and cause financial loss. You have a point, if what they did was neither illegal nor immoral, why didn't they do it openly and proudly?

I will answer a question with a question.

Why did Julian Assange create the Rubberhose encryption?

Tpoints
01-25-2013, 12:28 AM
I will answer a question with a question.

Why did Julian Assange create the Rubberhose encryption?

because he's a criminal and wants to aid criminals

pcosmar
01-25-2013, 12:33 AM
what is the stupidity you want to punish them for? and how much is enough?

I am punishing no one. I am an observer.

The US Government (and other governments) wanted to close down Wikileaks,, and stifle Free Speech, information sharing and Free Press.
Corporations are a branch of the Government. (created By, and benefiting from) and in collusion were blocking donations. Trying to kill Wikileaks.

Anonymous (or individuals acting anonymously) is an advocate of Freedom. Freedom of Speech, Press, and information, and oppose internet censorship.

These companies are on the wrong side, and angered people that had the means of striking back (to some extent).

Personally, as an observer, I wish they were able to more permanently cripple these corrupt entities.

That will not happen soon. But it will end. And the money changers will be driven out permanently.

pcosmar
01-25-2013, 12:36 AM
because he's a criminal and wants to aid criminals

Wrong answer.


The project was originally named Rubberhose, as it was designed to be resistant to attacks by people willing to use torture on those who knew the encryption keys. This is a reference to the rubber-hose cryptanalysis euphemism.

It was written in 1997–2000 by Julian Assange, Suelette Dreyfus, and Ralf Weinmann.[2][3]

It was originally designed for use by human rights groups working in third world dictatorships, but was often proposed for use in other countries such as the United Kingdom where threats of imprisonment can be used to force people to reveal their encryption keys (see Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000).

compromise
01-25-2013, 02:38 AM
The use of force is immoral. Whatever the government does, it does not justify cyber attacks upon private businesses. It makes you as bad as them.

twomp
01-25-2013, 02:45 AM
The use of force is immoral. Whatever the government does, it does not justify cyber attacks upon private businesses. It makes you as bad as them.

What force did Anonymous use? If you were around in 1773, I'm sure you would have stopped the Boston Tea Party as well right? Because that Tea belonged to private businesses as well. Those guys in Boston should have been arrested and thrown in jail by the British government too right?

V3n
01-25-2013, 11:39 AM
Judge Peter Testar said: “It is intolerable that when an individual or a group disagrees with a particular entity’s activities they should be free to curtail that activity by means of attacks such as those which took place in this case.”

This is exactly what Mastercard, Visa and Paypal did to Wikileaks!

They didn't agree with their activities, so they curtailed it by attacking their funding. Intolerable!

McChronagle
01-25-2013, 11:48 AM
These companies have every right to instute policies where payments to certain entities are not allowed. Theyre offering a service and thats their choice. The problem comes in when you ask why they are doing this and who should really be blamed. It should be obvious that the gov is pressuring them to do this and although complying with their requests make these companies cowardly, im not sure it justifies retaliation against them.

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 11:49 AM
The use of force is immoral.... It makes you as bad as them.

https://lh3.ggpht.com/-ctT-FRa2Wwk/TblsepQRk0I/AAAAAAAAAs0/ZE9dVe-ycng/s400/Revolutionary-War.jpg

The use of force should be discouraged and restrained.....but every once in a while there comes a time.......As to your views on what is moral, then I'm glad they were "immoral" as hell.

KingNothing
01-25-2013, 11:59 AM
These guys should be jailed but, at the same time, people should be allowed to spread information that exposes fraud and corruption without fear of legal persecution.

KingNothing
01-25-2013, 12:01 PM
These companies have every right to instute policies where payments to certain entities are not allowed. Theyre offering a service and thats their choice. The problem comes in when you ask why they are doing this and who should really be blamed. It should be obvious that the gov is pressuring them to do this and although complying with their requests make these companies cowardly, im not sure it justifies retaliation against them.

Exactly. The problem is the government that committed the crimes Wikileaks exposed, then pressured financial companies to cut off the flow of funds to the organization that exposed the fraud. And, further, those who reacted to that coercion by damaging the private property of others should be held accountable for their actions.

KingNothing
01-25-2013, 12:02 PM
This is exactly what Mastercard, Visa and Paypal did to Wikileaks!

They didn't agree with their activities, so they curtailed it by attacking their funding. Intolerable!

But they had every right to do so. We shouldn't be able to force one business to act in a manner we find desirable.

KingNothing
01-25-2013, 12:04 PM
because he's a criminal and wants to aid criminals


Sure, by some definitions. That doesn't mean his cause is necessarily ignoble, though.

pcosmar
01-25-2013, 12:16 PM
Sure, by some definitions. .

Define "Crime".

If exposing "crime",, or providing tools to expose actions by oppressive totalitarian Governments is a "crime" we should all be criminals.
Proudly.

KingNothing
01-25-2013, 12:27 PM
Define "Crime".

If exposing "crime",, or providing tools to expose actions by oppressive totalitarian Governments is a "crime" we should all be criminals.
Proudly.


So, basically, you just nailed why I said "by some definitions."

Are you arguing with me, or something? Why did you truncate my post, particularly the part where I implied that his actions should be lauded.

pcosmar
01-25-2013, 12:34 PM
So, basically, you just nailed why I said "by some definitions."

Are you arguing with me, or something? Why did you truncate my post, particularly the part where I implied that his actions should be lauded.

Nope. Just hoping people will think about the word "Crime", or criminal.
Especially when the Police State has grown to oppressive levels due to "crime". And when people claim that a humanitarian is a criminal.

Even Christ was executed as a "criminal".

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 12:34 PM
These guys should be jailed but, at the same time, people should be allowed to spread information that exposes fraud and corruption without fear of legal persecution.

Why should they be jailed for something that barely qualifies as civil disobedience? Server downtime. I work in an IT department. It happens all the time. If you saw how often it happens for no definable reason whatsoever, you would never get on an airplane again. Worse is the sum of 3.5M Pounds Sterling? Where did they pull that number from? The same place they keep their heads I presume.

NorfolkPCSolutions
01-25-2013, 12:36 PM
I am defending liberty, you are defending aggression. Take your pick.

Ahh sheeit, drama drama drama...fucking tasty. Keep it coming.

TO CONTRIBUTE these are not Anonymous hacktivists. Their names are Chris and Ashley. GET IT???

btw, SoL, LOIC.exe ≠ epix hax0r. If you need a translation to understand what I've just written, QFT. :-)

NorfolkPCSolutions
01-25-2013, 12:41 PM
Your forum alias is a lie.
You are NOTHING but Authoritarian.

These are Prisoners of War.

Quoted for truth. Also, SpreadOfLiberty, formerly GeorgiaAvenger? I get it, you're that cunt from a while back, right? I take back what I said a moment ago.

Post more. We're all laughing at you. :-)

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 12:41 PM
Ahh sheeit, drama drama drama...fucking tasty. Keep it coming.

TO CONTRIBUTE these are not Anonymous hacktivists. Their names are Chris and Ashley. GET IT???

btw, SoL, LOIC.exe ≠ epix hax0r. If you need a translation to understand what I've just posted, QFT. :-)

I don't think he would know one if it was orbiting over his head right now.

KingNothing
01-25-2013, 12:53 PM
Why should they be jailed for something that barely qualifies as civil disobedience? Server downtime. I work in an IT department. It happens all the time. If you saw how often it happens for no definable reason whatsoever, you would never get on an airplane again. Worse is the sum of 3.5M Pounds Sterling? Where did they pull that number from? The same place they keep their heads I presume.

They had absolutely no right to interfere with someone else's business. I think this is pretty obvious. If we are to have a legal system, these guys must face consequences, regardless of how noble their crusade may or may not be.

I'm certainly on the side of Anonymous, but it seems silly to think they should be allowed to interfere with a private entity.

KingNothing
01-25-2013, 12:53 PM
You guys all know that two wrongs don't make a right, right?

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 12:57 PM
You guys all know that two wrongs don't make a right, right?

"Maybe I oughta practice a little civil disobedience." - Ron Paul

NorfolkPCSolutions
01-25-2013, 01:01 PM
Ha! Where'd he [SoL, GeorgiaAvenger] go, anyways? Come back, guy! I hear your voice in my mind as I read your posts, and that makes them especially lulzy...

<crickets>

Fuck.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

All this discussion, this vitriol passing back and forth amongst brothers and sisters here in the Liberty Forest, and for fucking what? Chris and Ashley taking part in what amounts to - boil it down, people, get to the root of it - nonviolent resistance to tyranny? Besides, I know a fella 'round these parts who told me all about how he created a botnet out of most of the computers at his local community college for the purpose of running LOIC during Operation Payback. And he lives in the sticks, right smack fuck in the middle of flyover country. Chris and Ashley are from the United Kingdom, for God's sake!

Payback was a global effort. These two are the kind of people that history notes as scapegoats. I hope their sentences are commuted or shortened.


OP: thank you, thread delivered

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 01:06 PM
/\/\/\/\ Don't forget the card.:D

jtap
01-25-2013, 01:14 PM
I'm curious how they determined a DoS attack is illegal. It doesn't do any damage to property. Is it illegal for a bunch of people to clog up the road in front of me and make it take me longer to get to where I'm going?

If they don't want to be DoS attacked then don't have a server on the internet.

I'm pretty sure a DoS attack is just a LOT of people requesting packets from their site. So much traffic their servers can't handle it. Maybe they should beef up their servers to handle the load or get a bigger pipe. Most sites wish they had that kind of traffic :)

the 3.5 million number they came up with is BS. Also, that's not the money that was cost to them and they cannot possibly prove it. That MAY have been the amount of business they would have conducted during that time the site(s) were not accessible, however, it doesn't mean that business wasn't conducted right after the sites came online. All of the people trying to send that money theoretically could've just waited and it cost them no business. I could throw up that number (of zero) as easily as they came up with their theoretical maximum. I'm still not convinced that 3.5 million was the amount they would make in that time. It seems more likely to be the sum total of the transactions that they would possibly process during that time.

FindLiberty
01-25-2013, 01:35 PM
Can flies avoid Honey Pots?

KingNothing
01-25-2013, 01:39 PM
Is it illegal for a bunch of people to clog up the road in front of me and make it take me longer to get to where I'm going?

Uhh, yes. A case could definitely be made, both in criminal and civil court.

KingNothing
01-25-2013, 01:41 PM
That MAY have been the amount of business they would have conducted during that time the site(s) were not accessible, however, it doesn't mean that business wasn't conducted right after the sites came online.

It really wouldn't be hard to determine if this was the case. Any honest analysis of the data could resolve this concern. But, at the same time, even if the $3.5M is an exaggeration -probably is- so what? If the actual dollar-value is $1M, or $1K, or $1, that doesn't make interfering in the business of others an OK thing to do.

KingNothing
01-25-2013, 01:42 PM
"Maybe I oughta practice a little civil disobedience." - Ron Paul


I'll be dollars to donuts that Ron Paul doesn't actually approve of what the hackers did in this instance.

NorfolkPCSolutions
01-25-2013, 01:45 PM
That'd be quite a sight to see.

BADUM PAH

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 02:17 PM
\\\\

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 02:20 PM
I'll be dollars to donuts that Ron Paul doesn't actually approve of what the hackers did in this instance.

Let's go over what Ron has approved of that we know is fact.
Ron has said he would exonerate Bradley Manning, who breached his chain-of-command and violated direct orders to release information to Assange and wikileaks.
Ron has also publicly praised wikileaks and Julian Assange in speeches for his efforts in exposing corruption in Washington.
Ron is also against crony capitalism. Wall Street in bed with Washington.

So Anonymous practices a little civil disobedience to make people aware that the credit giants Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal have made the "moral" decision to stop processing donations to wikileaks. Can't exactly rely on the MSM to make people aware of this kind of cronyism.

Keep the FRNs. Silver Liberty Eagles to donuts my friend.

twomp
01-25-2013, 02:46 PM
Let's go over what Ron has approved of that we know is fact.
Ron has said he would exonerate Bradley Manning, who breached his chain-of-command and violated direct orders to release information to Assange and wikileaks.
Ron has also publicly praised wikileaks and Julian Assange in speeches for his efforts in exposing corruption in Washington.
Ron is also against crony capitalism. Wall Street in bed with Washington.

So Anonymous practices a little civil disobedience to make people aware that the credit giants Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal have made the "moral" decision to stop processing donations to wikileaks. Can't exactly rely on the MSM to make people aware of this kind of cronyism.

Keep the FRNs. Silver Liberty Eagles to donuts my friend.

Don't tell them that. I'm sure people around here claiming to be "liberty lovers" would have Bradley Manning locked up for life if they could. He BROKE THE LAWS after all.

tod evans
01-25-2013, 02:47 PM
Don't tell them that. I'm sure people around here claiming to be "liberty lovers" would have Bradley Manning locked up for life if they could. He BROKE THE LAWS after all.


Not I.......:o

UWDude
01-25-2013, 02:48 PM
Judge Peter Testar said: “It is intolerable that when an individual or a group disagrees with a particular entity’s activities they should be free to curtail that activity by means of attacks such as those which took place in this case.”


Like when Mastercard, PayPal and Visa stopped accepting donations for wikileaks?

Also, corporate media does not mention the motive when it's for freedom....

...but when its some nut killing a bunch of people, media focuses almost solely on motive.

jtap
01-25-2013, 03:03 PM
Uhh, yes. A case could definitely be made, both in criminal and civil court.

Well, not all laws are good ones but I'm curious which law would stop a group of bikers from driving slowly on the road and blocking me from going the speed limit to get to where I was going (assuming there was no minimum speed limit law they were breaking)?

This is not something that should have a law and something that should not be policed. It's like when a group pickets in front of a store to deter people from going in.

During a DoS attack, some people do get in. If instead of a few smart people leveraging a bunch of computing power and emulating hundreds of thousands of users requesting data. If they actually got a few hundred thousand people to access the site at once, bringing it to its knees in a DoS attack, then what? Are all those people going to go to jail?

They should be spending their resources trying to worry about real cyber criminals committing real crimes (child porn and theft of people's money). This may have interrupted a service but it didn't steal anyone's money.

The companies are responsible for their own servers. There are ways to prevent these attacks. It's part of normal security practices to spend their own money to prevent this if their business draws this sort of attention, not tie up the courts with legislation trying to ruin the lives of people who are requesting more data from their server than it can handle. So your IT people suck at NT and security, deal with it. Get better people and invest more in having smarter firewalls that filter out DoS attacks. These people did them a favor. Other companies PAY MONEY for people to load test their servers like this and show their vulnerabilities.

twomp
01-25-2013, 03:13 PM
When freedom is a crime, only the criminals are free.

mad cow
01-25-2013, 03:47 PM
Someone mentioned this site,plenty of people dislike this site.
Would it be OK in y'alls opinion for them to mount a DOS attack on RPF?

In the last 2 weeks, I have had ammo delivered from five different sites.Plenty people don't like guns.
Would it be OK for them to mount a DOS attack on those sites?

Or are these attacks only valid tools for attacks on sites you disagree with?

Inkblots
01-25-2013, 03:57 PM
I hate people that destroy other's property.

Well said. Disagreeing with the business practices or political positions of an individual or company in no way gives you the right to vandalize or destroy their property. These so-called "hacktivists" clearly initiated force against Mastercard, PayPal and Visa and are rightly being jailed for doing so. I don't give a wooden nickel if you agree with their politics, if you think these people's actions were justified and that they shouldn't be punished, you clearly don't follow the non-aggression principle.

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 04:03 PM
Well said. Disagreeing with the business practices or political positions of an individual or company in no way gives you the right to vandalize or destroy their property.

Once again, for the record, there was no vandalism or property damaged. The article in the OP has a statement from the judge that stated this fact. Read the article before you post.

twomp
01-25-2013, 04:04 PM
Well said. Disagreeing with the business practices or political positions of an individual or company in no way gives you the right to vandalize or destroy their property. These so-called "hacktivists" clearly initiated force against Mastercard, PayPal and Visa and are rightly being jailed for doing so. I don't give a wooden nickel if you agree with their politics, if you think these people's actions were justified and that they shouldn't be punished, you clearly don't follow the non-aggression principle.

So if you were around in 1773, you would have the people who dumped Tea into the Boston harbor arrested as well correct?

SpreadOfLiberty
01-25-2013, 04:05 PM
If I lay down in front of the door Dominoes Pizza for several hours and don't allow anybody to pass, I should be punished. That is a minature version of what happened here.

jtap
01-25-2013, 04:06 PM
Someone mentioned this site,plenty of people dislike this site.
Would it be OK in y'alls opinion for them to mount a DOS attack on RPF?

In the last 2 weeks, I have had ammo delivered from five different sites.Plenty people don't like guns.
Would it be OK for them to mount a DOS attack on those sites?

Or are these attacks only valid tools for attacks on sites you disagree with?

The burden is on the sites to up their security if they are being targeted. Leave the government out of it.

jtap
01-25-2013, 04:08 PM
If I lay down in front of the door Dominoes Pizza for several hours and don't allow anybody to pass, I should be punished. That is a minature version of what happened here.

That only works if the door opens out and you would have to be on the property. Then property laws come into effect. You would need more than just yourself to disrupt entrance to the establishment via the public area.

It is internet picketing and picketing is usually not illegal.

Edit:

I'd happily get pizza from a better pizza place anyway :D

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 04:09 PM
If I lay down in front of the door Dominoes Pizza for several hours and don't allow anybody to pass, I should be punished. That is a minature version of what happened here.

People would step over you like a woman getting raped in NYC.

Inkblots
01-25-2013, 04:10 PM
Once again, for the record, there was no vandalism or property damaged. The article in the OP has a statement from the judge that stated this fact. Read the article before you post.

I am well aware of the case, sir. Disrupting access to someone else's property - be it a server stack or a storefront - is an initiation of force and an act of vandalism. There is no excusing it because it was in the "virtual world" -- those servers are the physical property of their owners.

Throwing up a removable wall in front of a store you dislike is no more acceptable than launching a DDOS attack, as these miscreants have learned to their cost.

Inkblots
01-25-2013, 04:13 PM
So if you were around in 1773, you would have the people who dumped Tea into the Boston harbor arrested as well correct?

While the East India Company is an interesting case, in that it often acted as an official agent for the British Crown, that tea was the property of its shareholders. So, yes, that was clearly a property crime, and if I were on a jury trying one of those fellows, I would vote to convict.

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 04:16 PM
I am well aware of the case, sir. Disrupting access to someone else's property - be it a server stack or a storefront - is an initiation of force and an act of vandalism. There is no excusing it because it was in the "virtual world" -- those servers are the physical property of their owners.

Throwing up a removable wall in front of a store you dislike is no more acceptable than launching a DDOS attack, as these miscreants have learned to their cost.

If I stand in front of a building and protest, and even completely block customers from entering, you are actually saying that would qualify as vandalism?

jtap
01-25-2013, 04:19 PM
I am well aware of the case, sir. Disrupting access to someone else's property - be it a server stack or a storefront - is an initiation of force and an act of vandalism. There is no excusing it because it was in the "virtual world" -- those servers are the physical property of their owners.

Throwing up a removable wall in front of a store you dislike is no more acceptable than launching a DDOS attack, as these miscreants have learned to their cost.

I don't get how a cluster of persons B impeding single person A from getting to person C's property by being there before them is an act of force or vandalism. Outside the apple store it's called a line.

Inkblots
01-25-2013, 04:20 PM
If I stand in front of a building and protest, and even completely block customers from entering, you are actually saying that would qualify as vandalism?

More likely that would be tried as trespassing. Putting up a removable wall, which is a better analogy, would probably be tried as trespassing, vandalism, and criminal mischief. This case was tried under the crime of "impairing the operation of computers", which in a general, non-legal sense I'd consider an act of vandalism, and which, I believe, actually is classed as a form of criminal mischief.

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 04:21 PM
While the East India Company is an interesting case, in that it often acted as an official agent for the British Crown, that tea was the property of its shareholders. So, yes, that was clearly a property crime, and if I were on a jury trying one of those fellows, I would vote to convict.

Well that's the difference right there. I would be one of those fellows. If you and other like minded jurors would have convicted me and the other conspirators, well, wow what lovely times it sure would be now. Lollipops and unicorns and tyranny. I'm sure Piers Morgan would agree with you if that makes you feel better.

jtap
01-25-2013, 04:29 PM
More likely that would be tried as trespassing. Putting up a removable wall, which is a better analogy, would probably be tried as trespassing, vandalism, and criminal mischief. This case was tried under the crime of "impairing the operation of computers", which in a general, non-legal sense I'd consider an act of vandalism, and which, I believe, actually is classed as a form of criminal mischief.

It's nothing like a wall.

You request a webpage from the site, but the site is too busy to respond to you because a bunch of other people requested it first. You showed up late and there is a big line. No wall. It may seem like a wall because you can't get to what you want but it's just that you are last in line and when you are told to come back later and do, a bunch of other people got in front of you since then and the line is longer.

I don't see how it's trespassing. How is it ok for me to travel on the "pipe" of internet "property" from my computer to the server of this webpage a "reasonable" amount of times...but doing it over some unwritten amount of times I then am now trespassing and become a criminal?

Edit:

I don't see how it can be vandalism since there is no destruction of property.

mad cow
01-25-2013, 04:32 PM
The burden is on the sites to up their security if they are being targeted. Leave the government out of it.

So are you saying that you don't have a problem with anybody attacking this site or ammo dealers or any other site on the internet?
I am a computer illiterate but suppose somebody could block any access to any site for two weeks with the click of a mouse?would that be all right with you?

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 04:35 PM
If they hadn't tacked on that ridiculous 3.5M GBP charge in revenues they said the "lost", would this have even made it to criminal court or would this have been a civil offense? I have a feeling they used that ridiculous lost revenue charge as a way to escalate it to criminal charges. Does anybody know?

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 04:36 PM
So are you saying that you don't have a problem with anybody attacking this site or ammo dealers or any other site on the internet?
I am a computer illiterate but suppose somebody could block any access to any site for two weeks with the click of a mouse?would that be all right with you?

Only if it was a threat to national security of course. Then I would use the "kill switch."

jtap
01-25-2013, 04:44 PM
So are you saying that you don't have a problem with anybody attacking this site or ammo dealers or any other site on the internet?
I am a computer illiterate but suppose somebody could block any access to any site for two weeks with the click of a mouse?would that be all right with you?

Yep. It would just show the site wasn't adequately setup to handle the issue and would need changes to handle it. Just like when a site is hacked, you patch the vulnerabiliy and thank the hacker for pointing it out. Now if they destroy property or steal data, that's a different story.

mad cow
01-25-2013, 04:54 PM
Yep. It would just show the site wasn't adequately setup to handle the issue and would need changes to handle it. Just like when a site is hacked, you patch the vulnerabiliy and thank the hacker for pointing it out. Now if they destroy property or steal data, that's a different story.

Well,I disagree.If some body kindly pointed out how to improve the security on my home computer,I would thank them.
If they prevented me from getting deliveries from UPS for two weeks,even without stealing the packages,to prove their point,I would consider it malicious and wouldn't thank them at all and would punish them if I could.

twomp
01-25-2013, 04:59 PM
While the East India Company is an interesting case, in that it often acted as an official agent for the British Crown, that tea was the property of its shareholders. So, yes, that was clearly a property crime, and if I were on a jury trying one of those fellows, I would vote to convict.

Luckily there were REAL Americans back then and not enough of your types around. We might all be speaking with a British accent still if you had your way.

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 04:59 PM
Well,I disagree.If some body kindly pointed out how to improve the security on my home computer,I would thank them.
If they prevented me from getting deliveries from UPS for two weeks,even without stealing the packages,to prove their point,I would consider it malicious and wouldn't thank them at all and would punish them if I could.

Sometime when you are bored,type "Geohot" and "Facebook" in google to understand what jtap is talking about.

twomp
01-25-2013, 05:00 PM
Well,I disagree.If some body kindly pointed out how to improve the security on my home computer,I would thank them.
If they prevented me from getting deliveries from UPS for two weeks,even without stealing the packages,to prove their point,I would consider it malicious and wouldn't thank them at all and would punish them if I could.

If the package you were receiving from UPS was sent to you by the government to help deceive the people, I would hope you never receive it.

mad cow
01-25-2013, 05:17 PM
If the package you were receiving from UPS was sent to you by the government to help deceive the people, I would hope you never receive it.

What if the package was ammo,like it has been for the last two weeks and anti-gunners were doing the preventing?
They certainly hope that I never receive them.
So,once again,is this activity good or bad depending on whose ox is being gored or do you think it is all good?

jtap
01-25-2013, 05:17 PM
Well,I disagree.If some body kindly pointed out how to improve the security on my home computer,I would thank them.
If they prevented me from getting deliveries from UPS for two weeks,even without stealing the packages,to prove their point,I would consider it malicious and wouldn't thank them at all and would punish them if I could.

There are 2 issues here:

1 - Hacking without destroying data or stealing. This can be helpful. Like if I were a home security expert and I analyzed your house and showed you where the vulnerabilities are for theives to attack (without damaging any of your property).

2 - The DoS attack in which they use some hacking like skills to mimic more manpower than they actually have. Essentially mind power to make up for manpower, but it could be done also with manpower, which seems akin to picketing to me. If someone is in essence picketing your house and stopping packages from arriving, the question would be why? Why do people picket? They could be doing it for good or evil or for someone else or for selfish reasons. It all depends. We know why these people were doing it.

jtap
01-25-2013, 05:19 PM
What if the package was ammo,like it has been for the last two weeks and anti-gunners were doing the preventing?
They certainly hope that I never receive them.
So,once again,is this activity good or bad depending on whose ox is getting gored or do you think it is all good?

I'd say it depends. Your example though has property involved. The ammo is your property...so that makes it more tricky. The DoS attack makes it difficult for customers to get to the website service. No property involved.

TheGrinch
01-25-2013, 05:41 PM
It's nothing like a wall.

You request a webpage from the site, but the site is too busy to respond to you because a bunch of other people requested it first. You showed up late and there is a big line. No wall. It may seem like a wall because you can't get to what you want but it's just that you are last in line and when you are told to come back later and do, a bunch of other people got in front of you since then and the line is longer.

I don't see how it's trespassing. How is it ok for me to travel on the "pipe" of internet "property" from my computer to the server of this webpage a "reasonable" amount of times...but doing it over some unwritten amount of times I then am now trespassing and become a criminal?

Edit:

I don't see how it can be vandalism since there is no destruction of property.

Except that it's not down because too many people are accessing it. It's not like a line at the apple store or traffic, it's like me locking the door to your Apple store and refusing to open it for you or customers.

A good point that was made in this thread is that it's not up to me or you to force a company to comply with our views, that's anti-free-market and anti-property rights....

Or rather, if you feel it's worth paying the consequences for civil disobedience, then go right ahead, I agree they deserve it, but with actions come consequences, in this case the consequence of disabling access to someone else's property, which most can agree should never be tolerated.

TheGrinch
01-25-2013, 05:42 PM
I'd say it depends. Your example though has property involved. The ammo is your property...so that makes it more tricky. The DoS attack makes it difficult for customers to get to the website service. No property involved.

Service comes from a server, which is property. Nice try though.

mad cow
01-25-2013, 05:43 PM
I'd say it depends. Your example though has property involved. The ammo is your property...so that makes it more tricky. The DoS attack makes it difficult for customers to get to the website service. No property involved.

I assume that Master Card ,Visa and Pay Pal lost money because of this attack,they certainly lost time and time is money to any business.
It may have been less than the amount they claimed,or not,but they lost money,i.e. property.

jtap
01-25-2013, 05:52 PM
The server was serving the requests of these people from anonymous until it crashed. When a server crashes from so many people trying to access it to buy something popular and it benefits the company, they are ok with it. If the server could handle massive amounts of people the DoS wouldn't be successful.

if you were trying to buy some Ron Paul merchandise from his website today and the website was down, and was back up the next day, wouldn't you buy it the next day? Did they lose money? Or was it just postponed?

TheGrinch
01-25-2013, 06:03 PM
The server was serving the requests of these people from anonymous until it crashed. When a server crashes from so many people trying to access it to buy something popular and it benefits the company, they are ok with it. If the server could handle massive amounts of people the DoS wouldn't be successful.

if you were trying to buy some Ron Paul merchandise from his website today and the website was down, and was back up the next day, wouldn't you buy it the next day? Did they lose money? Or was it just postponed?

I might go buy merchandise from one of the other Ron Paul merchandise outlets (though there are plenty of unauthorized ones who could stand to gain).... And really that's a poor example, because there's not really competition for official Ron Paul merchandise, whereas most other companies have competitors.

And that's not how law usually works, to where your crimes only matter if it does cause actual damage, or if they happen to be scumbags. It may change the severity of the punishment, but a crime is a crime nonetheless.

Further, you absolutely cannot equate a server naturally getting bogged down with 2 individuals forcibly bogging it down articificially. Yes, it would be a protest if you got enough people to do it naturally, but this form of property destruction (even if only temporary) and unauthorized use is most certainly a property crime, and CAN cost someone a lot of money, so expect serious consequences for good reason.

I don't want to live in a world where some of you think that unauthorized use and manipulation of someone else's personal property is okay, or somehow exempt because they're a scumbag.

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 06:07 PM
What if the package was ammo,like it has been for the last two weeks and anti-gunners were doing the preventing?
They certainly hope that I never receive them.
So,once again,is this activity good or bad depending on whose ox is being gored or do you think it is all good?

This is a good point. There is no damage or theft but I agree with your anger. I can't speak for Anonymous, but they publicly pride themselves in fighting for the people when it seems like the authorities don't care or are hiding something. Out of the blue, Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal all just decide one Tuesday morning that they disagree with what Wikileaks is doing and decide to halt their ability to receive donations. Ironically, this could be considered a denial of service attack since they are denying their transaction services to Wikileaks. Permanently. Donations pending? Gone. That is obvious theft. So we have three huge credit transaction firms attacking wikileaks with a permanent denial of their services and guilty of theft in the loss of pending transactions. So anonymous poses the question, "Why would those three credit agencies halt donations to a page whose sole purpose is to expose government corruption?" Now this is a question that is really worth asking. This is brilliant activism, and by doing it this way, it finally gets the media attention it deserves when the credit agencies themselves are outraged and speak out for them (while still avoiding the question of course). So how does it all shake out in the end?

Visa, Mastercard, Paypal:
Denial of service? Guilty
Theft- Guilty
Length of attack? Permanent

Anonymous:
Denial of service? Guilty
Theft - Not Guilty
Length of attack? 1 day

Verdict: 3.5M restitution owed to Visa, Mastercard, Paypal. No wrongdoing. Anonymous hackers guilty on several counts and jailed.

Does this sit right with you?

TheGrinch
01-25-2013, 06:23 PM
This is a good point. There is no damage or theft but I agree with your anger. I can't speak for Anonymous, but they publicly pride themselves in fighting for the people when it seems like the authorities don't care or are hiding something. Out of the blue, Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal all just decide one Tuesday morning that they disagree with what Wikileaks is doing and decide to halt their ability to receive donations. Ironically, this could be considered a denial of service attack since they are denying their transaction services to Wikileaks. Permanently. Donations pending? Gone. That is obvious theft. So we have three huge credit transaction firms attacking wikileaks with a permanent denial of their services and guilty of theft in the loss of pending transactions. So anonymous poses the question, "Why would those three credit agencies halt donations to a page whose sole purpose is to expose government corruption?" Now this is a question that is really worth asking. This is brilliant activism, and by doing it this way, it finally gets the media attention it deserves when the credit agencies themselves are outraged and speak out for them (while still avoiding the question of course). So how does it all shake out in the end?

Visa, Mastercard, Paypal:
Denial of service? Guilty
Theft- Guilty
Length of attack? Permanent

Anonymous:
Denial of service? Guilty
Theft - Not Guilty
Length of attack? 1 day

Verdict: 3.5M restitution owed to Visa, Mastercard, Paypal. No wrongdoing. Anonymous hackers guilty on several counts and jailed.

Does this sit right with you?

You know what the major difference is. The CC companies were denying THEIR OWN service, much like I can kick spammers off my forums. They were not blocking access to the site, they were blocking access of their service, which of course any company has the right to do (aside from the CRA that we're all supposed to be against here).


On the other hand, the hackers denied the CCcard's service and their servers. Surely you can see why you interfering with my property and service is a crime, whereas me denying my own services and property is obviously well within my rights.

But as I said earlier, I don't have a particular problem with the civil disobedience, I have a problem with people suggesting that one not be held accountable for the crimes against someone else's property. That's a slippery slope when you excuse one person's crimes because you don't like how the other one chooses to conduct business.

mad cow
01-25-2013, 06:31 PM
I don't like the fact that they denied the service to Wikileaks,I would hate the fact if they denied service to me tomorrow.
However,they are private companies selling a service and they can deny that service to anyone for any reason as far as I am concerned.

I have had this discussion many times on this forum and I will always come down on the side of the owner of the business deciding who he wants to sell his property or service to and whatever were his reasons for denying the sale,even when I completely disagree with his reasons and I am the person denied.

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 06:36 PM
You know what the major difference is. The CC companies were denying THEIR OWN service, much like I can kick spammers off my forums. They were not blocking access to the site, they were blocking access of their service, which of course any company has the right to do..

Yes, it qualifies as civil disobedience. However, this enabled Anonymous to publicly pose the million dollar question that has yet to be answered. Why would private sector credit card companies be afraid of a website that exposes public sector government corruption? You have to admit, that is a damn good question, and when you factor in the publicity...priceless, as Visa would say.

TheGrinch
01-25-2013, 06:41 PM
Yes, it qualifies as civil disobedience. However, this enabled Anonymous to publicly pose the million dollar question that has yet to be answered. Why would private sector credit card companies be afraid of a website that exposes public sector government corruption? You have to admit, that is a damn good question, and when you factor in the publicity...priceless, as Visa would say.

I said earlier I think the companies probably deserved it, and I don't have a problem with civil disobedience when warranted, but what I took issue with was with your suggestions that:

1) The hackers did not commit a crime worthy of prosecution. Disagree.

2) That the CC card companies committed the same or worse crimes by denying their own services. Vehemently disagree. That is their right, even if I vehemently disagree with their stance.

I believe in personal responsibility as do most here, and there are consequences for infringing on the rights of others.

paulbot24
01-25-2013, 06:51 PM
I said earlier I think the companies probably deserved it, and I don't have a problem with civil disobedience when warranted, but what I took issue with was with your suggestions that:

1) The hackers did not commit a crime worthy of prosecution. Disagree.

2) That the CC card companies committed the same or worse crimes by denying their own services. Vehemently disagree. That is their right, even if I vehemently disagree with their stance.

I believe in personal responsibility as do most here, and there are consequences for infringing on the rights of others.

Well said. Sometimes the lines get blurred between what is "principally" proper and what is "technically" proper and which should take precedent. Obviously or this thread would not have lasted this long! I think most of us agree on what matters most or we wouldn't have found this place.

jtap
01-25-2013, 07:05 PM
If the law in their land says it's illegal to "electronically picket" a website by flooding its server with requests to send you information, which is why it's on the internet, then obviously they should be ready to pay the price. I don't know the laws there and I wouldn't do that if it was illegal and it were me. I think the law is probably pretty silly. How many requests to the server in an amount of time is the limit to where it becomes illegal. If it's 100 per second. Then they can just make a program that sends 99 per second and get enough people to do it to cause the outage at that rate. It seems hard to police and a weird thing to police.

It sounds like these businesses got the government to create laws against this instead of spending the money to hire IT people and buy equipment to setup and protect against these "attacks".