CEO Indicted for DDOSing Competitors

ruland writes "It turns out there was a reason the hosting company CIT/Foonet was raided in February. SecurityFocus.com reports that the CEO of a web-based satellite T.V. retailer has been indicted for allegedly paying Foonet's administrator to arrange denial of service attacks against his competitors, causing outages as long as two weeks at a time, and $2 million in losses. Now he's skipped out on $750,000 bail, while the five packet monkeys who worked for him are left facing felony charges of their own."

Comments

wtf

[micronix1]

what a bunch of retards.

Re:wtf

[strictfoo]

Don't know how this is a troll. It's pretty much right on. Those guys are absolute idiots and deserve everything they have coming. Just because the guy who hired them fled doesn't mean they shouldn't get in trouble.

Re:wtf

[dasmegabyte]

My question is, will we now see a number of apologies from everybody who posted to the last article with Big Brother complaints and privacy concerns?

Here's an example of the FBI doing its damn job and doing it well, shutting down a major example of a new type of crime. Maybe we should give the FBI a little fucking credit sometimes, man. I mean, sometimes it's more than Hoover spreading rumors of homosexuality and harassing Black Panthers. Sometimes, they stop ACTUAL crimes, too.

Re:wtf

[jrexilius]

Agreed, and as a contrast the DoJ raided some kids houses to stop them from trading music. You get some good with some bad and no system is perfect but that doesn't mean you shouldn't demand better.

The good examples (which is the majority) of the FBI doing their job should only serve as examples of how they have strayed in other areas. Along with that is the understanding that we are setting higher standards for our federal agencies and should be given respect, resources, and support for meeting them.

Re:wtf

[DM9290]

My question is, will we now see a number of apologies from everybody who posted to the last article with Big Brother complaints and privacy concerns?

Just because someone commited an actual crime, you are suggesting Big Brother complaints are unwarranted?

I'm not sure which is the "last article" you referred to. So I can only comment generically.

Are you suggesting that this type of crime would have been impossible to investigate prior to Patriot Act (ect) removing judicial oversight and giving broad discretionary (read: arbitrary) powers to law enforcement. Or did the FBI abuse its power and happen to actually arrest someone by luck.

Or perhaps you are operating under the premise that prosecuting a handful of criminals is all that is necessary to justify the absolute infringment of the rights of all of society?

Here's an example of the FBI doing its damn job and doing it well, shutting down a major example of a new type of crime. Maybe we should give the FBI a little fucking credit sometimes, man. I mean, sometimes it's more than Hoover spreading rumors of homosexuality and harassing Black Panthers. Sometimes, they stop ACTUAL crimes, too.

Did the FBI shutdown an actual crime based on probable cause? Because this is absolutely nothing new to law enforcement. Probable cause has been the traditional standard required for an arrest/warrant or just about anything for years and years.

Or did the FBI shutdown a operation on the basis of a mere possibility. or out of plain malice. This is certainly worth criticism, and just because something turns out to be a crime after the fact does not and can not justify the original intrusion.

At least.. not without hypocracy in a country which purports to be free.

The FBI is not the only law enforcement agency which sometimes stops "actual" crimes. That is no reason to turn the entire country into a police state.

If you could post a link to the "last article" you were concerned about, that would be good.

In any event. before breaking out the champaign, it would be reasonable to wait for a conviction.
For all we know the FBI are yet arresting another innocent person.

Guys, take note of this...

[tkrotchko]

If your boss tells you to do something illegal, they'll arrest him *and you*. When he skips bail, you'll be left holding the bag.

Re:Guys, take note of this...

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

I've been in that situation before... where the boss is hinting/saying that he wants to do something illegal and unethical to gain the upper hand. It is a terrible feeling. Follow orders or not... you're screwed either way. I got lucky: the boss got talked out of it. But honestly, that situation sucks!

It's like the soldier who's ordered to commit war crimes. What do you do? It's in no way you're fault - but you're in a lose - lose situation.

The best thing to do is refuse, and if you lose your job... there could be worse things. But still, it sucks.

Re:Guys, take note of this...

[timmyf2371]

Common sense really - if you do something illegal you should always expect to be arrested/prosecuted if you're found out, whether doing it as a result of your own wishes or someone else's wishes.

Re:Guys, take note of this...

[utlemming]

Not if you want to be a little Machiavellian. Simply pick up the phone and dial the nearest police/FBI/whoever station and arrange a possible whitsle-blower agreement. You follow the orders while collecting information, your boss gets canned and sent to jail and when you get fired you file a whistle-blower lawsuit. Then it is a lose/lose for your boss and a win/win for you. And the best part is that you have covered your ace.

Re:Guys, take note of this...

[alexre1]

I hate to tell you this, but following orders is no excuse for committing war crimes.

Or do you want to agree with one of the main Nazi defence points in Nuremberg? They claimed this too, you know, that they shouldn't be held accountable for any of their actions because they were ordered to do so. Should Nazi soldiers not be held to account for torturing and murdering millions of Jews and other 'undesireables' simply because they were following orders? How about atrocities in the civil wars all over Africa?

If a commanding officer tells a soldier to rape women, torture innocent children, etc, then is that soldier is completely innocent of any crime, simply because he was ordered to do so?? I should hope you don't think that. Warfare is supposed to be calculated violence, not a series of uncontrolled bestial impulses.

Re:Guys, take note of this...

[plover]

In a small shop situation like this, if the boss goes down the shop closes. You may not go to jail, but you won't be going to work the next day, either.

Regardless, CYA is still the best advice to follow if you're ever put into this situation. (Homelessness somehow seems a lot better than two to five years, even with time off for good behavior.) And your nearest FBI agency is indeed the right call to make -- they take this very, very seriously. If you do, though, be completely honest and thorough from the start. They will not be kind to you if they discover a lie halfway through their investigation.

I don't care how bad the tech industry is.

[drunkennewfiemidget]

I'd rather be unemployed and searching for a job for a good long while than being in federal PMITA prison for PACKETING someone. The packeters deserve whatever they get, because frankly, I know how much of a pain in the ass it is to get DDoSed. If you can't get the upper hand through legitimate tactics and methods, then you don't deserve to be in business. Go flip burgers or something.

Re:Tin Foil Hat Brigade

[jebell]

Perhaps the blame should lay not with the authorities, but with the people who committed the crime.

Let's say I steal $1000 and put it in my business's client trust account. The cops figure it out and put a freeze on my account. Now the rest of my clients can't get their money. Who's to blame?

Ummm, troll? Don't think so.

[SatanicPuppy]

Mod parent up, that's exactly what I thought.

What kind of moron doesn't think a big DDOS like that is going to be traced? The reason everyone gets away with it with MS and SCO is because everyone hates them, so there are too many suspects...But when its your biggest competitor? You're going down.
And then to skip bail? "Noooooo please don't send me to white collar CEO prison for a week. Waaaaaaah."

This is almost too dumb to make a Dilbert strip.

This is too funny!

[ScottGant]

I remember this story back in Feb with all the conspiricy people coming down on how the "FBI has overstepped their bounds again" and calling it another Ruby Ridge or Waco.

Click on the original story and even THAT makes it seem like they were just innocent people being unfairly picked on by the evil overlords known as the FBI.

If FBI agents showed up at your data center bearing a warrant, would you be able to provide them prompt access to customer data? BZZZZT! I'm sorry, but you've taken too long to answer. We'll be confiscating all the hardware you use, er, used to use, to run your business. But we'll get it back to you 'real soon now.' Thank you for playing.

Now it turns out the people raided were in fact "the bad guys" and the warrent (remember, the FBI HAD a warrent) was legit AND...er...warrented.

It's funny how everything changes when more facts are thrown in...and I'm sure not all the facts are even in yet!

Re:This is too funny!

[DM9290]

So what means are justified in this situation? What could the FBI have done that would have satisfied you?

It would have satisfied me, if the FBI were open and forthright with a judge and obtained a proper warrant on reasonable grounds, based on reasonable and credible evidence, and based on reasonable grounds that seizure of all the computers in question was the only means of securing the evidence, and the grounds for believing in that evidence was also reasonable and presently openly and honestly to that judge in addidavit. If the judge came to that conclusion, and ordered the seizure. Then I would be happy if the FBI executed that order to the best of their ability with the minimum possible additional hardship on the parties involved.

I would be happy if the warrant did not leave the FBI with any discretion as to whether or not to seize the material. That should be for a judge to decide. Not a cop. The cops are not trained or expected to be unbiased. I would be happy if it was a judge who ordered such an infringement and not a cop.

Tell us how YOU would have approached this situation, knowing now that the suspects WERE doing something bad. How could the FBI have done anything or found evidence that could link them to the crime, without the bad guys erasing everything they had?

I would have put everything I knew about the situtation into an affidavit, and presented it to a judge. If the judge ordered me to seize the computers, I would have obeyed the order.

What is known post facto is irrelevant to the conduct the police should have used prior to and during the seizure.

Police should be polite. They should respect and obey the law. Especially the constitution, which is the highest law. They should not get personal about the situation, and they should absolutely remember COPS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PUNISHMENT OR MAKING A FINDING OF GUILT.

I always see people talking about the government overstepping their bounds, yet offer no real solution that can actually catch bad guys red-handed. I mean, I kinda agree with you...I don't want the FBI breaking down someones door and taking away everything for no reason or because they "think" illegal activity may be going on. But I look at it from their point of view also, how are they going to catch people that don't play by the rules?

Check it out. lawmakers, are responsible for making sure cops have the necessary legal tools for enforcing the law that the lawmakers make.

Cops only need to follow the law, and use the legal tools lawmakers set up. NOTHING MORE.

Cops are not vigilantees. No one is above the law. Society can not distinguish between cops which break the law for personal gain and cops which break the law because they are trying to do good. Moreover, cops which play by the rules should be rewarded promotions.

Lawmakers must be able to craft good laws.

This is called "seperation of powers" and this is one of the things which keeps a democracy from turning into a tyranny.

Lawmakers don't enforce the law. Lawmakers don't interpret the law. Judges interpret law but do not make law. Cops obey law and enforce law but do not make law or interpret. Lawmakers make law, but do not interpret or judge or enforce.

If we gives cops the authority to unilaterally decide whose rights to violate, without a requirement to answer justify such violation, we are living in dangerous times.

I dont know the facts in the situation, so speculating on whether or not the FBI properly seized the computers is pointless. Since we still have a right to a fair trial (at least on paper), hopefully this can be explored at that time.

People are well justified in getting scared when they see the seperation of powers threatened.