Slashdot Mirror


Vigilante Hackers use Old West Tactics for Justice

dismorphic writes "Angered by the growing number of Internet scams, online 'vigilantes' have started to take justice into their own hands by hacking into suspected fraud sites and defacing them. These hackers have targeted fake websites set up to resemble the sites of banks or financial institutions in recent weeks, and have inserted new pages or messages. Some say 'Warning - This was a Scam Site,' or 'This Bank Was Fraudulent and Is Now Removed.'" So maybe it's not a posse of horsemen, but it's still kinda cool that someone is taking care of those who would defraud the public.

383 of 532 comments (clear)

  1. justice by Artana+Niveus+Corvum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I truly often wish that sort of justice were legal... When the law can't back itself up and the people can...

    --
    -----------------------------------------
    Remove the Greed which plagues mankind.
    1. Re:justice by EngMedic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem is, it's not justice, it's retribution.

      --
      filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
    2. Re:justice by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is not justice. Who says that this site or that site is a fraudulent bank? How would you like it if a 'vigilante' defaced your site claiming you were a fraud?

      If you don't have a trial with evidence, all you are doing is creating cycles of revenge, with no resolution. With a justice system, wrongs can be righted, and then we are done with the matter.

      There is no justice system that is totally perfect, but resorting to vigilantism when justice isn't perfect would make the situation much much worse.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    3. Re:justice by peculiarmethod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, this specific *type* of working around the legal route to justice will only stengthen the tactics/creativity used by "bad guys"(c). It's introducing the darwin effect, and will only kill off the stupid for s short time.. until they learn they much up the anty. In time that will only make it harder to detect the scams. While its cool in the short run, it's only helping the bad guys evolve.

      kinda cool though.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    4. Re:justice by Adrilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and meanwhile, while all of this time is passing waiting for arrests and trials, they fraudulent websites are robbing people who don't know any better. I don't fully endorse the defacing the sites but it's something and it works quicker than waiting for the justice system to catch up. It's not a resolution, but it is a deterent, not to mention if the justice righted the wrongs and we were already "done with the matter" the vigilantes wouldn't have fake sites to deface.

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    5. Re:justice by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      I've often thought of writing a script to flood bogus data into scam sites, so that at least they couldn't get any real data out of it after the script had started.... Anyone think that would work, or am I overlooking something?

      Smart scammers will keep track of IP addresses via a script running on the server, and block you after a while. Of course, as we all know from some of the spam and scams out there, the bad guys are not always all that bright.

      I remember reading an article on Slashdot about this specifically about a year or so ago, but a search doesn't bring it up. Essentially, someone wrote a script to do just this. However, from a technological point of view, his script was the same thing as any other "bad" script out there that feeds crap to web servers. This made it easy for the scammers to filter out his input. Maybe having a distributed network of computers doing this help keep the signal to noise ratio low, maybe it would just mean more IPs to ban. Anyway, I think it is worth looking into.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    6. Re:justice by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I truly often wish that sort of justice were legal... When the law can't back itself up and the people can..."

      I might agree with you if I thought people generally had a good sense of proportion.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:justice by hawado · · Score: 1

      yeh, all you have to do is take possesion of all those windows zombies out there and viola, you have your base for a distributed attack...
      Although I agree with both sides of the argument here, legal recourse should be pursued before ilegal course is taken.

      --
      Feed my eyes...
    8. Re:justice by ear1grey · · Score: 4, Funny

      This was originally an ill-considered and underinformed comment disagreeing strongly with the attitude and social misalignement of the parent comment, however vigilantes have hacked it and altered it's purpose to throw the original comment's cunning and socially wry insight into sharp relief.

    9. Re:justice by hawado · · Score: 1

      yeh, all you have to do is take possesion of all those windows zombies out there and viola, you have your base for a distributed attack...
      The great thing about this is that most of these zombies have rotating IP addresses as they belong to home users. Even with a broadband connection it is likely that you have a changing IP. Now if the scam sites want to block all traffic from lets say, rogers or bell by wild carding the second two parts of an IP, they are killing most of the traffic set on messing up their site, but they are also killing off most of their intended target. This may not seem like much dealing with one provider, but when you consider the zombies are spread out around the world and across all providers, they would effectively have to block all providers to save their systems from an attack.
      Although I agree with both sides of the argument here, legal recourse should be pursued before ilegal course is taken.

      --
      Feed my eyes...
    10. Re:justice by strider44 · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      If they know how to hack a site they know how to go through an anonymous proxy.

    11. Re:justice by anagama · · Score: 1

      I remember reading an article on Slashdot about this specifically about a year or so ago, but a search doesn't bring it up. Essentially, someone wrote a script to do just this.


      My memory is failing me be it sounds akin to ..... *thinking: brain wishing I'd had breakfast and a good night's sleep with a nun* ... here it is: Make Love, Not Spam.

      Click the little "click here" if you click the link I made above -- interesting factoids. I remember being all happy about this and saddened that it got shut down. I also remember being berated for that opinion -- one I still hold. I want this back! More good than harm you know?

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    12. Re:justice by thinkliberty · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah but scammers are now useing new souper P-P-P-Powerbooks!

      There is no way you are going to bring down their site.

    13. Re:justice by chachacha · · Score: 1

      You mean you often wich this sort of justice were legal if you were the only one carrying it out. How is this any different (except in scope) from religious zealots bombing abortion clinics? They are standing up for what they as the individual believe and taking the law into their own hands... The problem, as always, with this kind of thinking is that you invariably lose majority consensus and society decomposes into anarchy of the worst kind.

      --
      I do like programming things that work super quickly, especially when they work super quickly, super quickly.
    14. Re:justice by secolactico · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slippery slope argument? In this case it's pretty clear that GOOD came out of this, did not make any situation much much worse.

      Actually, slippery slopes sometimes start like this. With a clear cut case of right and wrong. But tomorrow it might be used as precedents for other actions. For example, DMCA "violators" might find their site defaced with a sign that says: "This software brakes the law and the author is a criminal".

      When someone bypasses the rule of the law and proper procedures and takes justice into his own hands, and "the system" looks the other way or even condones the action, it opens the door to all other sort of vigilantism.

      --
      No sig
    15. Re:justice by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Aren't we the same people that worry about the goverement taking away our right of do process with the Patriot act. I'm sure the goverment probably uses some of the same reasoning. "It would take month to get this court order to tap the phone line"

      That said I really don't care about these sites getting defaced, if they accidently deface a legitimite site well then I think they should be punished.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    16. Re:justice by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      " It's not a resolution, but it is a deterent, not to mention if the justice righted the wrongs and we were already "done with the matter" the vigilantes wouldn't have fake sites to deface."

      A similar argument could be made for vigilantism. The problem is is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. What if defacing the sites isn't good enough? What if somebody thinks it's funny to put goatse or something on their site? What if they DoS attack the site with zombie computers? Etc.

      I can imagine you're shaking your head reading this. That's fine. Just consider that there are a lot of show-offs out there with no real code-of-conduct to follow.

      There's a reason why vigilantism is illegal.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    17. Re:justice by Artana+Niveus+Corvum · · Score: 1

      A justice system is (albeit loosely) nothing more than exactly what you describe, I think. A cycle of revenge... suit and countersuit... especially in civil matters... sometimes less so in criminal matters of course. That is of course not to mention that in many cases like these the perpetrators are outside the realm of our justice system... Just a thought really and I was expressing my feelings on the issue. Those who do such things should be punished or at least scared into not doing it anymore. I agree that ultimately it will probably just lead to the "bad guys" getting smarter, but so would legitimately pursuing them through any legal system that governs both them and us...

      --
      -----------------------------------------
      Remove the Greed which plagues mankind.
    18. Re:justice by Adrilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like I said I don't fully endorse what they're doing, and one of the reasons why is because it can spiral out of hand. But I can understand the intent and I can appreciate standing up for the average consumer who doesn't know that they are getting taken advantage of, there is some sort of neighborhood justice there. It's not good, but I don't think it's bad either, I'd say it falls in a favorable area of gray and as long as it stays there, I can live with that.

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    19. Re:justice by knBIS · · Score: 2, Informative

      I got my first fraud email from some site claiming to be paypal the other day, and followed the link to see how convincing it was... The site looked pretty good (unless you check out the address bar... )

      So i figured i'd try and login with some random user name and password... Well it seemed like they actually forward the information to paypal's site to check and see if its valid...

      Maybe they just deny everyone who tries to login, but it looked like my browser was actually sending some information to paypal.com befroe the russian site told me that my info was invald... i didn't really want to try it with my real info, so i'm not really sure how it would behave if it recieved a good username/pass,,

      So depending on how much effort they put into building the fake site, flooding it with bad date might be sort of useless

    20. Re:justice by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      There's a reason why vigilantism is illegal.
      Actually, vigilantism isn't illegal. For instance, the Minuteman Project, or more basically a neighborhood watch program, is vigilantism.

      It's only illegal if you attempt to enforce the law yourself, bypassing the police.

      Remember, vigilante comes from vigilance.
    21. Re:justice by Borealis · · Score: 1

      Well think of it this way...

      Who are the web site owners going to complain to?

      "Um, hello justice department, some h4x0r just defaced my scam bank site, now I can't steal money from people's accounts any more!"

      --
      Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
    22. Re:justice by future+assassin · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yes it is when fag ass scammers can send you an email that takes you to a site like this and scam you out of your cc info.
      http://www.futureassassin.com/phish/dv_01.gif/
      http://www.futureassassin.com/phish/dv_02.gif/
      I reported this site to netcraft and they send me an email back confirming I found a phishign site. This site was shut down a few minutes later and the domain was put into REGISTRAR-HOLD

      By the way if you are the first to discover a phish site netcraft sends you a present,. still waiting for mine :)

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    23. Re:justice by British · · Score: 1

      Smart scammers will keep track of IP addresses via a script running on the server, and block you after a while

      Problem solved! Er, temporarily. Maybe if the phishing site was hacked/flooded by a handful of AOL addresses, the scammer would give up and block all of AOL. Said gullible AOL users would be phish-free.

    24. Re:justice by oirtemed · · Score: 1

      How would you like it if a 'vigilante' defaced your site claiming you were a fraud? My site isn't a blatant copy of CitiBank's. This isn't a grey area...these sites are black and white...the grey area argument does not apply here.

    25. Re:justice by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      In time that will only make it harder to detect the scams.

      How funny. I only have to open my Yahoo! mail and check all the creditcard related accounts (i have NO credit card!). So how hard is it to detect? Really?

    26. Re:justice by JockAMundo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've often thought of writing a script to flood bogus data into scam sites

      I do this all the time. It is easy with the Firefox Web Developer extension. I just turn the post into a get, remove the field limits, and fill the fields with hundreds of characters. I usually take some text from Project Gutenberg. Then I stuff the big GET into a wget command in a looping bash script and let it run for a few hours. These sites are usually just php mailers, and so I get the satisfaction of filling a scammers mail box.

      Probably useless, but it makes me feel better.

      (arg, slashdot says I'm a script!, that is it, I done coding for the day and I'm going for a beer)

    27. Re:justice by v1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      but to say it's a bad idea to fight injustice because the criminals will just get better, that's a blanket justification that could be applied to all crime. The result of widespread adoption of that mindset would be "anarchy".

      If you don't fight back, you are perceived as weak. Criminals prefer to prey on the weak. So by not fighting back, you are making yourself an attractive target, and will be exploited.

      Vigilante justice occurs when a group is doing something that the general public can openly agree is wrong, but for which there is no formal law or rule forbidding. The populace takes action independently to protect themselves until which time the appropriate laws are passed.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    28. Re:justice by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, this specific *type* of working around the legal route to justice will only stengthen the tactics/creativity used by "bad guys"(c). It's introducing the darwin effect, and will only kill off the stupid for s short time.. until they learn they much up the anty. In time that will only make it harder to detect the scams. While its cool in the short run, it's only helping the bad guys evolve.
      Apply the same reasoning to door locks (with spelling corrected, of course) ...
      Unfortunately, installing door locks will only stengthen the tactics/creativity used by "bad guys"(c). It's introducing the darwin effect, and will only kill off the stupid for a short time.. until they learn they must up the ante. In time that will only make it harder to keep crooks out of your home. While its cool in the short run, it's only helping the bad guys evolve.
      ... doesn't make much sense in the real world, does it ...
    29. Re:justice by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, not a valid argument.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    30. Re:justice by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      From netcraft http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/01/03/fraud _hosting_and_phishing_site_countermeasures.html
      Hosting Company

      Netcraft will identify, contact and liaise with the company responsible for hosting the fraudulent content. Netcraft enjoys excellent relations with the hosting community, and many of the world's largest hosting companies are Netcraft customers. Netcraft can exercise its existing relationships with these companies to provide a swift and smooth response to the detection of the site. If the hosting company is reputable, this may be sufficient to ensure a prompt end to the fraudulent activity.

      However, some hosting companies offer fraud hosting as a service whereby they are incentivized to keep the site up as long as possible, and this necessitates more extensive action.

    31. Re:justice by IP+Logger · · Score: 1

      How about bringing down servers before they even put up such sites? And that, ladies and gentlemen, is justice,Texas style ! ! ! Y'all need to "respect my authority" Coz that's the american way..

    32. Re:justice by lost+in+place · · Score: 1

      Actually, vigilantism isn't illegal. For instance, the Minuteman Project, or more basically a neighborhood watch program, is vigilantism.
      It's only illegal if you attempt to enforce the law yourself, bypassing the police.


      That's the very definition of vigilante

      Remember, vigilante comes from vigilance.

      Comes from, originally. Not synonymous with.

    33. Re:justice by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Smart scammers will keep track of IP addresses via a script running on the server, and block you after a while.

      From what I've read, these sites don't stay up long by design. They send out a few million phishing spams pointing to their site, any responses are likley within a few hours. Then move to a new host and repeat. So DOSsing them in that short period can hurt them. Recall though that thay may be mobbed up and if you keep bothering them, someone may visit you in the real world.

    34. Re:justice by dewke · · Score: 1

      I truly often wish that sort of justice were legal... When the law can't back itself up and the people can...

      Why yes of course. This is exactly the type of thinking that brought upon great events like Kristallnacht.

      While vigilante justice all well and good when it's what you believe in, due process and "innocent until proven guilty" is somethign that was put in place in this country to prevent AND to protect us.

      Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant -- society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it -- its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.

      From On Liberty by John Mill.

      --
      Oderint dum metuant
    35. Re:justice by bkissi01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are web pages that send a "flash mob" to their sites. You disable your browsers cache and then open the web page and it repeaditly loads images from the 419 sites. If a lot of people have the page open it will consume all of the bandwidth of the 419 sites. Kind of like the Make Love Not Spam screensaver that Lycos made. Essentially by a bunch of people constandly downloading the images from the sites it creates a DDoS attack on the site. I'm not too sure about the legality of an "attack" like this, but it is a cool idea.

    36. Re:justice by irving47 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry, but I can't buy the slippery slope argument. Some issues are black and white. Just because there are OTHER sites that aren't as easy to prove are doing something illegal doesn't mean you give a pass the the ones who are *blatantly* attempting to rob someone blind.
      If I see someone getting pickpocketed and I can aid them in getting their money back,... What am I going to do? Stand idly by and not say anything?

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    37. Re:justice by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see the court documents of one of these scam sites trying to take hackers to court.

      "Yes your honour I was running a phising site, but those dirty hackers defaced it before I could steel enough credit card details to maintain my mistresses lifestyle"

      (may contain spelling mistakes)

    38. Re:justice by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      I've often thought of writing a script to flood bogus data into scam sites,

      What, you haven't already?

      Armed with PHP 4, and my Linux laptop, I've done so many times. I hack together some stupid script, maybe using wget or fsockopen(), dump random garbage into the input form on their website, and repeat. Typical scripts will re-dump the form every 2-3 seconds, taking into account connection time, etc.

      With screen, an xterm, and a 1.5 Mb DSL line, I've taken scam sites offline numerous times for several hours at a time. (it often takes 30 to 50 instances of the dump script running to do so, however)

      A typical script hacked together typically takes me about 20 minutes to create, test, and start.

      I'll typically leave it there for a few hours, during which time I'll have made millions of bogus submissions, then quit. (I use that bandwidth, you know) during these few hours,

      If you haven't done it yet, either

      1) You don't know much about scripting and web forms,

      2) you don't have much in the way of guts.

      Which is it? Go do it, and see if you can't take a site or two offline for a while!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    39. Re:justice by Create+an+Account · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think it IS legal. If I recall correctly (IANAL), fraudulent activity is not protected by the law. It's analogous to a crack purchaser calling the police to complain that their dealer ripped them off.

      The police might arrest the purchaser (he did just CONFESS) and they might investigate the dealer (they now have a tip) but they don't care about the rip-off because fraudulent activity receives no protection under the law.

    40. Re:justice by Placido · · Score: 1

      I get your point, but maybe what the parent was suggesting was that if you are going to fight injustice you can't leave anyone alive to learn from their mistakes?

      Or maybe I forgot to take my medication this morning.

      --

      Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
      Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
    41. Re:justice by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Actually this is justice. The essence of the law is that its a system of taking revenge for wrongs done to you, but revenge taken in a controlled, organised fashion, and not excessive based on the crime. This is how the concept of law was originally formed, way back in Babylon; it was intended to stop feuds and duels in the streets. If the law and its enforcement fails in a given situation, it is only natural for people to revert back to how it was originally, taking revenge for themselves. Also, if you are running a legitimate site, and you get hacked, you have the full weight of the law to call upon. Phishers do not.

      I am wholly in support of these people.

    42. Re:justice by Ours · · Score: 1

      I somebody does get to deface a real banks website. Then it's almost doing them a favor because people expect sites like to be secure from intrusion. If my bank had a website that was defaceble, I would never use it again.

      --
      "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    43. Re:justice by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      Not true at all. What if the scammer's site is taken as the real institution's site, and the real institution gets defaced instead of the fraudulent one?

    44. Re:justice by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      viola

      Did you mean: voila?

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    45. Re:justice by mojotek · · Score: 1

      No, it's not retribution. That would imply getting or demanding something back from the scammers. It may not technically be justice either, but...

      From Dictionary.com:
      Retribution - n.
      1.) Something justly (emphasis mine) deserved; recompense.
      2.) Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment

    46. Re:justice by ScouseMouse · · Score: 1

      And who is going to take them to court exactly?

      These sites are illigal. If the owners take the crackers who hacked them to court, you can garantee that the banks would then immediately sue them.

      The banks have enough lawyers around to make what IBM is currently doing to SCO look like a cheap sideshow.

      The FBI have lots of things to worry about, and i suspect under the circumstances, they would choose to deal with crackers they actually consider are dangerous.

      That doesnt make this legal, however I cant see any prosecutions resulting from it.

    47. Re:justice by Soybean47 · · Score: 1

      The "better" phishers sometimes recreate your bank's login page, then forward your form input to the actual bank page, and return the result to you. Your login information gets stolen, but as far as you can tell, everything's going fine.

      Anyway, in these cases, your idea would involved DOSing a phisher... and a real bank. It seems less than ideal.

    48. Re:justice by BiloxiGeek · · Score: 1

      They sent me a nice coffee mug with the netcraft logo on it.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy and go well with ketchup.
    49. Re:justice by gregorio · · Score: 1
      If I see someone getting pickpocketed and I can aid them in getting their money back,... What am I going to do? Stand idly by and not say anything?
      Yes, you can help the old lady getting her money back. You can even arrest the mugger, based on citizen arrest laws. But you can't commit another crime, even if the victim is the original criminal itself. Translation: you can get the money back, you can even beat him while practicing self-defence, but you can't beat the crap out of him once he is on the floor, screaming for mercy.

      That's what a vigilante does.
    50. Re:justice by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      How long would it take for the RIAA and other such institutions to start (openly) using vigilante tactics to go after those who are stealing from them, (according to the written law, if not according to common sense). The only thing stopping them at the moment is the fact that they would be committing a crime to stop a crime.

      Make that anger and frustration work for you. Put together a legal posse and ride down to your congressman's office to demand changes to the existing copyright laws.

      The American legislative process has been hijacked by lobbyists young Bobby. Go get Zeke, Hoss and Jesse and together we'll get it back. I'll meet you in Washington with some beans and wiskey in two days time...

    51. Re:justice by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      If you don't have a trial with evidence, all you are doing is creating cycles of revenge, with no resolution. With a justice system, wrongs can be righted, and then we are done with the matter.

      You're right. It's wrong to, say, shoot the guy who allegedly raped your daughter without giving him due process. If he's not given the same rights you would expect if you were wrongly accused of a crime, then we're no better than them. That's what the justice system is for.

      But there is no justice system when it comes to international scams. Vigilantism was acceptable back in the era of westward US expansion, because there was no real alternative. Once law enforcement became feasible, vigilantism was phased out. The same thing is happening here.

    52. Re:justice by SComps · · Score: 1

      huh? I think I understand what you mean... but honestly if these folks are smart enough to figure out how to deface the site, they're (presumably) smart enough to chase down the netblocks and other information to confirm that Chase-Manhattan bank probably isn't hosted by a small time hosting company in one of the varios *istan countries. I'm also pretty sure that Paypal et al doesn't host their server farm on wanadoo (for example)

      Sometimes we can careful ourselves right out of existence. *MOST* reasonable people can grasp the blatent criminal sites. Those that can't should be dealt with as they don't have the restraint needed to be a good "white-hat." Honorable intentions or not. It comes down to what's being done and dealing with *individual* acts separately rather than as a group.

    53. Re:justice by javaxman · · Score: 1
      Yeah but scammers are now useing new souper P-P-P-Powerbooks!

      No mod points today, so I just have to say it :
      Thanks for that link. That made my morning. Friggin' hi-larious, though it does bug me a bit that nobody ever heard from Jeff again...

    54. Re:justice by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      You know you need to pay attention better when your own source proves you wrong.

    55. Re:justice by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      And that's fine. But when someone does fuck up, they need to be held fully responsible. Which means (potentially) hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines / damages, plus whatever time they may spend up in jail. Collateral damage is completely unacceptable.

    56. Re:justice by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that "up" is completely superfluous. My bad.

    57. Re:justice by SComps · · Score: 1
      And that's fine. But when someone does fuck up, they need to be held fully responsible


      I believe that in today's society that is a very real and very reasonable statement. One can't do greater harm trying to prevent another. That's why the people doing this have to do it properly. I still don't think it's wrong that they do it, but they have to use their heads in the planning stages and have the ability to say "whoa, we might be wrong here guys."

  2. ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    that's why my citibank fansite was defaced!

    1. Re:ahhh... by Dumbush · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait a minute, your site is a fansite? How come it required my citibank login to view the news item!

    2. Re:ahhh... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 3, Funny

      Simple: if you aren't a client, you aren't a real fan, are you? You bank account reaching a large negative number after registration is pure coincidence.

  3. gov. crackdown by Awol411 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i love how gov. agencies will probably crack down on the hackers defacing the phishing sites, but do little to nothing about the phishing sites/people themselves its all about the quick solution, not trying to go towards the deeper problem

    1. Re:gov. crackdown by mobiux · · Score: 1

      Although I kinda doubt any of these sites owners are going to run to the cops about it.

    2. Re:gov. crackdown by masterpenguin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      did the hackers that defaced the KKK and other Raciest websites several years ago ever get caught? Sometimes I think that the govt turns a blind eye to things that relieve the pressures of trying to regulate the internet. Self regulation can work in small doses.

    3. Re:gov. crackdown by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you actually have proof to back up this statement? I doubt it.

      --

      eTrade SUCKS
    4. Re:gov. crackdown by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      i love how gov. agencies will probably crack down on the hackers defacing the phishing sites

      Will they?

      Regardless of whether defacing a website is considered a criminal or civil act, law enforcement isn't going to find out about it unless a) they knew of the phishing site's existance and were already surveilling it, or b) the phisher themself reports it to the authorities.

      In neither case do I foresee the cops acting sympathetically towards someone who is caught in the act of trying to commit credit card fraud.

  4. Western Justice, eh ... by TripMaster_Monky · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The Geeks, the Pasty and the Unbathed"

    --
    __________
    |rip/\/\aster /\/\onky
    1. Re:Western Justice, eh ... by jacen_sunstrider · · Score: 1

      I didn't think you could seperate those.

    2. Re:Western Justice, eh ... by TimeForGuinness · · Score: 1

      Sergio is rolling over in his grave.

    3. Re:Western Justice, eh ... by kesuki · · Score: 1

      I think you mean...
      "The Geeks, The Binary, and the Unbathed"

  5. It's not a dupe... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

    ...but we had the same story, by a different news source a day or 2 ago.

  6. Jury nullification by XanC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it's common sense, regardless of the law, the people (in the form of a jury) can make it legal.

    1. Re:Jury nullification by dubdays · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, it seems to take FOREVER for the law to make a difference in these cases, if anything is ever done at all. The simple fact is that it's difficult, at best, to try to track and arrest an international criminal. I'm generally not one for vigilantes, but when it takes 5 months to catch the bastard legally, I'm all for taking the sucker out of business by other means.

    2. Re:Jury nullification by crymeph0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Agreed. From the end of TFA:

      We would rather see the industry itself find solutions.

      And while your industry is sitting around doing nothing about these fake sites set up in countries where the local police care more about rounding up dissidents than stopping fraud, people are losing their life savings. I'll take my chances with the vigilantes. Even if they make mistakes, at least they're doing something

      --
      It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    3. Re:Jury nullification by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

      If it's common sense, regardless of the law, the people (in the form of a jury) can make it legal.

      Not really. For example, if a person doesn't have appropriate charges brought up against them (or there are no such statutes), then there will never be an option for a jury to exercise. The jury might elect not to convict on something, but they can't cause a conviction (on other counts) where there should be one. This is particularly true where the nature of an act (like some innovative new form of online fraud, for example) hasn't been really contemplated by the justice system before.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Jury nullification by anagama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The jury might elect not to convict on something, but they can't cause a conviction (on other counts) where there should be one. This is particularly true where the nature of an act (like some innovative new form of online fraud, for example) hasn't been really contemplated by the justice system before.

      It sounds like you are saying that if a person comes up with a new fraud scheme, he can't be tried and convicted. I think fraud is a very flexible term. Basically, any transaction in which Fraudster deceives "Mark" in order to get Mark to do something (transfer info, money, goods, whatever), that's fraud. It doesn't matter if you do it on the street corner, out of a brick and mortar shop, or on the internet -- the key is deception as the basis of an exchange. The problem with fraud isn't so much its definition, it's finding the fraudster and getting legal jurisdiction over him or her. A brand new innovative scam? If you can get the guy into court, he'll not get off merely because it's new.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    5. Re:Jury nullification by anagama · · Score: 1

      Whoa, I should have read your post more carefully. You are completely correct when you say that if a person isn't charged with "X", the jury can't convict him of "X".

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    6. Re:Jury nullification by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with vigilantes is this:

      What happens when they come after YOU, and you don't have due process to protect you?

      -d

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    7. Re:Jury nullification by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We would rather see the industry itself find solutions.
      "The industry" would rather use this as an opportunity to sell you "our latest anti-phishing software". Fuck that! That is NOT a solution. That's barely a bandaid.
    8. Re:Jury nullification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      True, but your own post still holds true. Way back before the MPAA and RIAA and others recently started making congress pass laws making copyright infringment a bazillion times illegal, copyright law already made it illegal to copy and distribute someone else's music. Whether by singing a cover of it without the appropriate royalties, cassette, cd, or the internet, it didn't matter.

      There is nothing new under the sun, these days. In the end it all boils down to the same crimes, just in new ways.

    9. Re:Jury nullification by spongman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they can't make it legal. they can, however, choose to ignore the law.

    10. Re:Jury nullification by darkonc · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Just as long as they don't take out the entire server. A lot of these sites are hosted on hijacked and otherwise innocent boxes. If it's a multi-hosted box, you could easily end up taking out a couple hundred unrelated websites.
      Even for a single-hosted box, the person running the box may not be aware of what it's doing.

      Those caveats having been stated, however, I think that it's a nice thing to see being done. I've sent emails to the sites being spoofed suggesting that they ask for this sort of change, but I've never seen it actually done. They seem to either do nothing, or shut down the website -- no inbetween.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    11. Re:Jury nullification by HishamMuhammad · · Score: 1

      ...can make it legal.

      I know it's a bit offtopic (mod down at will), but... was I the only one who read the parent's comment and heard it with the voice of Darth Sidious?

      Trade Federation Viceroy: M'lord... is that... legal?
      Darth Sidious: I will make it legal.


    12. Re:Jury nullification by Arker · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm protected by Smith and Wesson.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    13. Re:Jury nullification by norton_I · · Score: 1

      I actually think the grandparent was saying that juries can make 'vigilante justice' legal by refusing to convict people for hacking into phishing sites and shutting them down. Or maybe I read that wrong.

    14. Re:Jury nullification by digidave · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let me know how that BOIP (Bullet Over IP) goes.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    15. Re:Jury nullification by norton_I · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is, of course, the problem with vigilante justice, and the reason it is illegal. The 'outmoded' idea of due process that makes our legal system too slow do deal with phishing and other fraudlent sites are designed to make sure the only the guilty are punished, and that the punishment is comensurate with the crime. If I get my paypal 'change your password' scam-of-the-week email, go to the site it points to, hack in, and shut down their webserver, I have maybe stopped some crimes being committed. But I refuse to trust myself to do so without disrupting anyone elses business, leaving the server open for other spambots and the like, or in general causing a mess. In the world where the chances of the perpetrator being caught were high, by hacking in myself, I might even destroy evidence that could be used to legally prosecute them.

    16. Re:Jury nullification by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Funny

      Love to see your monitor after that one...

    17. Re:Jury nullification by crymeph0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't get me wrong, this is not how things should be, but to turn your question around: What happens when your parents/friends/@other_close_ones get hit by a phisher, and "due process" doesn't protect them, because the industry is still "searching" for a solution?

      --
      It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    18. Re:Jury nullification by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      "I can promise you a fair trial this morning, followed by a fair hangin' this afternoon" - Judge Roy Bean, the Law West of the Pecos.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    19. Re:Jury nullification by dingbatdr · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. Poor countries have an incentive to encourage such illegal behavior. It brings money into their countries. Nigeria is probably much better off because of that scam, for example.

      --
      The truth is an offense, but not a sin.------R. N. Marley
    20. Re:Jury nullification by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Basically, any transaction in which Fraudster deceives "Mark" in order to get Mark to do something (transfer info, money, goods, whatever), that's fraud.

      So, basically, any advertisement (which "makes" customers buy goods, which may, or may not, have the advertised qualities...) is fraud? I don't think so. If the "fraud" rides the fine line between " puffery" in advertisement and outright fraud in a novel way, he may well be legal.

    21. Re:Jury nullification by Xoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      The grandparent is referring to the US (and possibly elsewhere) rarely-used practice of Jury Nullifcation. The jury essentially says that, yes, the accused is guilty of the crime stated, but the activity should not be a crime, and so we will not convict. Judges and prosecutors hate that, and will often refuse a juror if he mentions knowledge of the statute.

      --
      The previous sig has been removed due to /. protecting your best interests
    22. Re:Jury nullification by bronney · · Score: 1

      Good one :) *I am not a script*

    23. Re:Jury nullification by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      You are of course correct. Most jurisdictions have general criminal offences of obtaining money or property by fraudulent or deceptive means, and the exact means used are irrelevant.

    24. Re:Jury nullification by darkonc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this case, they're marking the site so that later 'marks' recognize that the site isn't legitimate -- but otherwise leave it up and functional. Yes, it might run over some forensic info, but given the dearth of arrests for these scams, it's rather productive to save some newbie's but (and bucks) from these people.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    25. Re:Jury nullification by sammy+baby · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there was a case not too long ago where a kid who was a photography buff was arrested for posession of... film canisters. Apparently, someone found them in his locker or on his person and assumed that he was using them to transport drugs. He was arrested, and eventually tried, for possession of drug paraphenalia.

      The punchline? Possession of paraphenalia isn't a crime where he lives. (Of course, he wasn't convicted, either.)

      Full story here.

    26. Re:Jury nullification by scovetta · · Score: 1

      Isn't that an option when you compile --with-evil-bit?

      --
      Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
    27. Re:Jury nullification by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Judges and prosecutors hate that, and will often refuse a juror if he mentions knowledge of the statute.

      That's just sick. America's ruling caste yet again doing it's best to see the lower caste kept in ignorance, and punishing those that don't display enough ignorance.

    28. Re:Jury nullification by akadruid · · Score: 1

      Too right. In some cases, the industry can learn to to work together to a benificial end - a good example is the number of open INXs which make the net possible (or at least cheaper).

      What it required here is an anti-spammer coalition, requiring at least 2 major email providers (yahoo & microsoft would be good), to work with VISA and Mastercard to shut down the spammers fast. By filtering truely huge amounts of mail, the coalition could be the first on the scene when a new phishing/spammer site appears. Making a transaction with a valid credit card number could then flag the spammer to VISA, who can instantly revoke the sellers merchant ID, and the flood of lusers signing up for AD0BE, M1CR0S0FT, V11111AGGRRRRR! would watch their transactions bounce. thus eductating both spammer and spamee alike, and making the world a better place.

      I wonder if someone could post a checklist of why this won't work?

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
    29. Re:Jury nullification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The problem with vigilantes is this:

      What happens when they come after YOU, and you don't have due process to protect you?


      You sound a little paranoid. Is someone running a scam site?

    30. Re:Jury nullification by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1
      Right now we don't have due process as it is, so exactly who is supposed to protect us? I can't see an anti-phishing vigilante coming after me, if they can figure out where I am in the first place, let alone get into my network and then my systems. I could engage in this but choose not to, as I can do a lot of other things. Comes from working computer/network security and actually doing something real, not hokum.

      Be that as it may, the legal system can't cope with this and never will be able to cope with it. It would require a whole new international legal system and you can't get all the members of the UN to agree on the shape of a conference table let alone a system of international jurisprudence or enforcement arm. Call me cynical, but that's the truth.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    31. Re:Jury nullification by whoppers · · Score: 1

      I pull bandit signs from public rights of way by the hundreds on a weekly basis. I've asked the question to the code enforcement if we're destroying evidence that could be used against these spammers. A resounding no is the answer, why? They'll post more signs, by the hundreds and thousands and the laws are not setup to deal with this issue, much like phishing sites.

    32. Re:Jury nullification by hokeyru · · Score: 1

      Well, the solution is to contract with reputable firms to provide hosting. Spam email servers are routinely blacklisted, even though a portion of the traffic is legit. Is this much different?

    33. Re:Jury nullification by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Just like in the west once some Law an Order was established the vigilntes stoped, if the powers that be want to end vigilantism, then they need to set up a better system.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    34. Re:Jury nullification by Deputy+Doodah · · Score: 1

      What happens is you protect yourself.
      I concede that it's more and more difficult to do that, but it's because our venerable lawmakers are actively trying to create a country where no one CAN legally take care of themselves.

      Can't have a socialist nanny-state if men take responsibility for our families and ourselves, can we?

    35. Re:Jury nullification by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      What happens when they come after YOU, and you don't have due process to protect you?

      That was a problem in the old west, perhaps, but, well, it doesn't apply here. I'm not running a phishing site.

      Without going on too much, there is a major difference between suspecting someone in a crime and catching them red-handed. These are *all* cases of "red-handed".

      For a better analogy, think of the guy selling the fake Nike shoes down on the corner. The cops generally confiscate and destroy those before there's a trial. There's no trial needed- the shoes are counterfeit and illegal. Now, the seller will face a trial just because it's how we do things here (and, he might have really thought they were real). But his business is shut down before that trial.

      These web sites need to be shut down, too. There's no reason for a judge to determine if it's illegal. It is.

    36. Re:Jury nullification by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      "What happens when they come after YOU"

      Somebody makes an "In Soviet Russia" joke.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    37. Re:Jury nullification by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      That was a problem in the old west, perhaps, but, well, it doesn't apply here. I'm not running a phishing site.

      Mob justice doesn't need a bad guy. It only needs a guy.

      All it takes is a couple of people that don't like you to say the right words in the right IRC channel, and kaboom there goes your site.

    38. Re:Jury nullification by NinjaFarmer · · Score: 2, Funny
      Zybl0re: get on up
      Zybl0re: get up
      Zybl0re: get on up
      phxl|paper: and DANCE
      * nmp3bot dances :D-{
      * nmp3bot dances :D|-{
      * nmp3bot dances :D/-{
      [SA]HatfulOfHollow: i'm going to become rich and famous after i invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet


    39. Re:Jury nullification by NinjaFarmer · · Score: 1
      Zybl0re: get up
      Zybl0re: get on up
      Zybl0re: get up
      Zybl0re: get on up
      phxl|paper: and DANCE
      * nmp3bot dances :D-{
      * nmp3bot dances :D|-{
      * nmp3bot dances :D/-{
      [SA]HatfulOfHollow: i'm going to become rich and famous after i invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet


      edited for readability
    40. Re:Jury nullification by shokk · · Score: 1

      Education about phishing and spam and viruses, which you and I have, is the only thing that will save people, not these glorified band-aids. The question is, how concerned are you by this? Will you talk to all your friends and family and get them to stop blindly clicking email links? Will you get on a soap box in Manhattan and shout it out to the throngs passing by? Will you campaign on television? Will you buy an ad in the New York Times?

      Or will you just complain about it like the rest of us, crowing how you know how to deal with it while nobody else does? =)

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    41. Re:Jury nullification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Then we will have upheld the Constitution, instead of tearing it to shreds.

    42. Re:Jury nullification by samhain_tm · · Score: 1

      Yeah... but my site doesn't look exactly like the wells Fargo or Bank of America websites... If these guys are smart enough to hack into a webserver... I would assume they would be smart enough to recognize that my site isn't a phishing site.

      --
      I'm the root of all that's evil, yeah, but you can call me cookie.
    43. Re:Jury nullification by Mr.Zong · · Score: 4, Funny

      What happens when your parents/friends/@other_close_ones get hit by a phisher, and "due process" doesn't protect them, because the industry is still "searching" for a solution?

      Darwinism?

    44. Re:Jury nullification by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      I read that story from top to bottom. I think it's fake. If not fake, highly embellished. It was well-written, but the quote from the judge where she says, "We'll get you later on down the road" comes across as too over-the-top.

      So, I checked google for 'Joshua Krawiek' and couldn't find an actual newspaper website where this story had been printed. Every site containing references to this story were non-news sites. Even the 'Idaho Observer' is a political activist website. Sounds like an urban legend to me.

      Seth

    45. Re:Jury nullification by operagost · · Score: 1
      You'll see the RFC for that one soon.

      BTW, it's not compatible with RFC 2549. Too many lost packets.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    46. Re:Jury nullification by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      I can think of one way it wouldn't work. Say the site collects a credit card number. Instead of pulling the funds out via their own merchant account they instead buy some goods at Walmart. The goods are then sold on eBay or similar. Your scheme would revoke Walmart's merchant account. While that's not necessarily a bad thing, as Walmart would've failed to verify the card holder was authentic, it's perhaps not a rational solution.

    47. Re:Jury nullification by Restil · · Score: 1

      It's hard to make a mistake in this instance. A fradulant site, linked from a spam email is pretty hard to confuse with the real thing, unless of course you're one of the morons that the spam was initially targeting anyway. It's pretty simple to identify a fraud site and taking it out hurts nobody but the one perpetuating the fraud.

      Certainly, it's a grey area, and damage done should be to the site itself, not necessarily the entire server the site is hosted on, since that's where mistakes could happen.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    48. Re:Jury nullification by bobbalouie · · Score: 1

      Well, the vigilantes "coming after me" is a moot point because I'm not doing anything that requires vigilante intervention. Nor will I ever. But, the bastards that are ruining peoples' lives or stealing their savings or just putting totally irritating pop-ups that won't go away on their computers (a blatant invasion of privacy, if ever there was one), yeah...let the vigilantes have at 'em. With EXTREME prejudice whenever possible.

    49. Re:Jury nullification by m50d · · Score: 1

      Sure, but what if someone who's taking credit card details is spoofing your IP? The vigilantes won't wait to see it proved beyond reasonable doubt.

      --
      I am trolling
    50. Re:Jury nullification by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. It is the federal government's exclusive right to shred the constitution --- they are doing a great job of it.

    51. Re:Jury nullification by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

      If you're in trouble, if nobody else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team!

      Or Knight Rider! Or Airwolf! Or the Dukes of Hazzard! Or M.A.N.T.I.S.!

      Surely one of these roaming vigilante justicars will be willing to lend you a hand in times of trouble! Truth be told, they could probably use the work, too.

    52. Re:Jury nullification by SComps · · Score: 1

      ok, so after said coalition issues the "flag" card number, they tag it as stolen or whatever they have to do to mark it as such. If I remember correctly the card company's can notify vendors via response codes on the machines that a card is stolen or otherwise worthy of getting law enforcement involved.

      "Sir, I need to get management approval for this, would you please step over here?"

    53. Re:Jury nullification by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Just a thought; I was just wondering if in the course of doing the vigilanty thing, that the vigilantes could possibly put the address, phone numbers, and an image of the horses rear that is phishing folks?

    54. Re:Jury nullification by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      My "parents/friends/@other_close_ones" are smarter than that. Plus I have taught them to be wary. Also to read snopes.com.

    55. Re:Jury nullification by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Yes, stolen is a response although more often I think it comes back as a "must call for authorization" type of code.

      Your scheme could work with the cards marked as such. However, I think if the cards were used at legitamite merchants by the spam harvesters that the credit card companies would have way too many false positives to filter through for the remote chance of finding a merchant account belonging to a spammer.

      It could still work though, if you compared a history of uncontested purchases on the merchant account as compared to the number of flagged cards being charged.

      I think the big question would be.. how do the spammers actually get money off the card numbers they receive?

    56. Re:Jury nullification by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Education about phishing and spam and viruses, which you and I have, is the only thing that will save people, not these glorified band-aids. The question is, how concerned are you by this? Will you talk to all your friends and family and get them to stop blindly clicking email links? Will you get on a soap box in Manhattan and shout it out to the throngs passing by? Will you campaign on television? Will you buy an ad in the New York Times?

      Or will you just complain about it like the rest of us, crowing how you know how to deal with it while nobody else does? =)
      Okay, I'm in. Since I've been spending the week doing animated TV spots, how about you bounce a few ideas around my way ... I'll see what I can come up with (15 seconds to 1 minute flash "animatoon" (not a spelling mistake - a toon) dealing with the problem, 720 x 486 stage).
    57. Re:Jury nullification by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      How about they need to physically have the card in their greedy little paws when making a purchase at a store?

      Its policy up here - only the person whose name is on the card - no wife, hubby, son, daughter, etc, and the card must be physically present, to make a purchase at a brick-and-mortar.

    58. Re:Jury nullification by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

      Not really. Juries can NULLIFY laws for a particular situation, which is all that jury nullification is. It allows a jury to say, "Even though the law says X, we agree that in this case it shouldn't apply". From there it can go up in the judicial system. But juries can't take something that isn't law and make it so.

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
    59. Re:Jury nullification by shokk · · Score: 1

      Lets start by the most rapid injection into the media possible. You start killing people, then I'll say I'm your spokesperson and I'll tell the talkshows about how you're angry that phishing is not nice.

      I'll be in touch.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    60. Re:Jury nullification by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Ahh, yes.. good point. Cards can be forged but that would probably take too much effort. Online purchases could work.. but then there's the delivery problem.

      I just can't believe that most of them are using merchant accounts. I'd love to know how they're actually getting them money.

    61. Re:Jury nullification by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Um, what's to stop them from doing it now?

      That's what folks on your side don't seem to get: these same people can take out other sites if they want to, anyway. But, they're not.

      I just don't get the argument. Perhaps it's mob justice, but you're talking about sites that are stealing information from people. Mine obviously isn't a phishing site. Nobody's going to get confused.

      Seriously. Some kid goes on an IRC channel and says "hey, Mike Chaney's running a phishing site on his web site". Vigilantes go and look at the site. I'm sorry, unless someone has opened a bank recently called "Michael Chaney Consulting Corporation", I don't think anybody's going to be confused.

    62. Re:Jury nullification by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Generally what the judges and prosecutors say is that the jury is there to determine whether a crime was committed, not to write the law themselves. That's the province of Congress.

      Of course, when Congress is completely owned by the elite business interests, it's one of the few options citizens have.

      Jury nullification has also been used for some really nasty things, particularly in the South. For instance, acquitting a white man for murdering a black man who had sex with a white woman.

    63. Re:Jury nullification by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      "If it's common sense, regardless of the law, the people (in the form of a jury) can make it legal."

      I recall, the people, in the form of a posse, still didn't make it legal.

      In a strange twist, the people, in the form of a military posse, did make invading Iraq legal. At least, the world has yet to weigh in on that.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    64. Re:Jury nullification by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      How many laws have to be broken to catch the person breaking the law? If your constitutional rights are trampled to get the 'law breaker' (in a strange twist of fate) would you be "all for taking the sucker out" now? What if 'taking the bastard out' meant closing your company or department for three months? I've heard of stranger cases of willing complicity with the feds regarding tracking cybercriminals, especially if said company even reports a crime. If it meant being tracked and bugged to catch 'them', would you be so willing? So, forgive the tinfoil hat approach, but I get wary of people who are so willing to drop standard procedure, especially when it involves clearing up a small inconvenience. Spam? Give me a break. I know how much it is purported to cost us all... This is one where the sector that created it should have learned to clean it up, even for a profit--Laughable, though, considering Microsoft is launching their own spyware/virus service.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    65. Re:Jury nullification by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      wouldn't work - no element of suspense. Everyone knows that a spammer with 3 knives sticking out his back, a noose around his neck, and several bullets with exit wounds in the front is an obvious suicide!

    66. Re:Jury nullification by lucason · · Score: 1

      Easy... If they do, you retaliate and sue em. NEXT

    67. Re:Jury nullification by carldub · · Score: 1

      Jury nullification usually works well. If nothing else it sends a message to the legal system.

    68. Re:Jury nullification by Froug · · Score: 1

      Except that you can't spoof someone else's IP and expect to receive any data destined for it. In order to phish those credit cards, you need to have a path back to yourself... One which said vigilantes will follow easily.

      Phishers can't hide from or misdirect vigilantes specifically because their method of operation makes it impossible to do so.

    69. Re:Jury nullification by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Easy, we'll create a second group of vigilante's to keep the first group in line...

    70. Re:Jury nullification by trontracker · · Score: 1

      makes for a snappy answer aimed at sophmoric humor but fails to engage the entirely legitimate question

  7. If only they could hack the email servers as well by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Sir,

    My name is Dr. Samouismai from the royal family of Nigeria and I would like to offer you a proposal that you may find compelling.

    I have recently come into an inheritance of goatse pics and I feel that I can not hold all of it safely. I would propose that if you agree I will hold 26 million of these pics in trust for you to deposit at whatever place you wish to keep them.

    I would like to meet to arrange this as soon as possible. If this deal succeeds, I would also like to discuss the possibility of you acquiring my collection of 4.3 million woopie cushions.

    Sincerely,
    I forgot my real name but I usually go by Jack Ass

  8. Hmmmm by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

    Most scam artists are smart enough to set up sites from free hosting companies, or use stolen credit cards to purchase paid hosting from legitimate hosting companies.

    Hacking into these legitimate companies doesn't do anything to hurt the scammers.

    --

    eTrade SUCKS
    1. Re:Hmmmm by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hacking into these legitimate companies doesn't do anything to hurt the scammers.

      ?

      You think that it doesn't hurt phishers when their "closer" is rendered inoperational? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm going to bet that some phisher that used their botnet to send out millions of emails (losing a number of their bots in the process) is going to be pretty pissed when some whitehat knocks their server offline before all of the morons enter their username and password.

    2. Re:Hmmmm by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Sure it does ... if someone that was taken in by a phishing email goes to the scammer's site and sees "THIS SITE IS RUN BY CROOKS" all over it, he might think twice about typing in his bank account numbers and clicking SEND. This isn't so much about accountability or bringing these guys to justice, it seems more about just making it harder for them to operate. And that's fine so far as it goes, but cracking a scammer's site is still going to be a violation of some cyberterror law or other.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Hmmmm by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      No, these people are Whitehats - their ultimate motivation is a good one, even if they use potentially illegal means to pursue them.

  9. The industry itself... by neo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Larson added, "We would rather see the industry itself find solutions."

    So would we.

  10. Hackers not always bad by masterpenguin · · Score: 2

    There has been a long history of hackers doing good on the internet. I think this is just another step in that story. Hackers have been misrepresented in the media for many years, and I for one am glad to see that for once they're getting some good press.

  11. Re:Old west? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's CoyboyNeal. With a nickname like that, of course he'd reference the old west.

  12. I agree by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We just don't see enough people hanging from trees for marrying outside their race.

    Oh, your concept of right and wrong is different from mine?

    1. Re:I agree by kclittle · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have mod points, but I can't find the "Insightful Flamebait Troll" value in the list...

      --
      Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    2. Re:I agree by chill · · Score: 1

      There is a big legal difference between a crime of violence and a crime against property.

      There is also a big practical difference between a crime against another criminal (who is unlikely to report or prosecute) and a crime against a non-crimial.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    3. Re:I agree by chill · · Score: 1

      One more time...

      The original sites are criminal, as defined by the laws of most nations. (Find me one where fraud by impersonating a financial institution is legal.)

      There is a difference between "criminal", as defined by the laws of the nation/state/society and your "opinion" of "unwanted".

      If the people doing the defacing were just picking stuff they didn't like, instead of stuff that is criminal, then you might have a point.

      -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    4. Re:I agree by chachacha · · Score: 1

      > There is a big legal difference between a crime of violence and a crime against property.

      In your opinion. What's worse - stealing $100,000 from a family's college saving's account or spanking your kid too hard for running with a gang? It's just never that cut and dry.

      --
      I do like programming things that work super quickly, especially when they work super quickly, super quickly.
    5. Re:I agree by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I think you need to get your head out of your ass.

      The ultimate result of vigilantism isn't the punishment of the criminal but the erosion of the rule of law.
      ... except that the jurisdictions where the servers are sitting don't have much in the way of law to erode, now do they?

      Having their web site defaced is getting off easy. If they want to complain, they're always free to set up shop in a jurisdiction with tougher laws ... lets hope some of them are dumb enough to do so.

    6. Re:I agree by westlake · · Score: 1
      There is also a big practical difference between a crime against another criminal (who is unlikely to report or prosecute) and a crime against a non-crimial

      The criminal deals with his own kind in his own way. You may want to think about that before you turn vigilante.

    7. Re:I agree by MoneyT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do you erode the rule of law where the law does not attempt to rule?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    8. Re:I agree by tokabola · · Score: 1

      He has more credibility than an anonymous coward.

      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
    9. Re:I agree by SUB7IME · · Score: 1

      Chill, you're going to great effort to continue to fail to understand. The law is that set of documents and precedents that save us from total relativism. Vigilante justice lies outside the law, and is thus not subject to absolute-ish (if arbitrary) interpretation. There is no universal code by which vigilantes must live, and thus the results of vigilantism is also much more varied. They might see something to be a crime that you think to be just fine, and vice versa.

    10. Re:I agree by MinotaurUK · · Score: 1

      stealing $100,000 from a family's college saving's account

      Most of the phishing attempts out there rely on the stupidity of users. Surely there's been enough publicity on the topic by now that people know not to fill in account details and the like on websites they aren't 100% sure they trust?

    11. Re:I agree by techmeltz · · Score: 1

      and just because someone is often a troll does not mean that they are always trolling. I am not a script.

      --
      [This space for rent]
    12. Re:I agree by STrinity · · Score: 1

      There is also a big practical difference between a crime against another criminal (who is unlikely to report or prosecute) and a crime against a non-crimial.

      Blacks who married whites were criminals according to the laws of the time. So the lynchers who strung them from a tree were merely committing crimes against other criminals.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    13. Re:I agree by dvk · · Score: 1

      > There is a big legal difference between a crime of violence and a crime against property.

      AINAL, so I wouldn't comment on the legal difference.

      But sometimes, there's no *real* difference.
      1) Psychological damage can be more severe than any physical damage. Much more long-lasting too.

      2) The owner of the property might have had to sacrifice a lot - including in terms of their health - to gain posession of said property, and/or suffer if deprived of it, depending on what the peoperty is.

      For a very good example, think for a minute why horse-stealing in the Wild West was a hangin' offense.

      -DVK

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
  13. It's both (n/t) by XanC · · Score: 1

    n/t

  14. Let the vigilantes ride! by Bad+Boy+Marty · · Score: 1

    I just wish they were carrying AK-47s -- and using them -- against the scammers/phishers/etc.

    --
    RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
  15. Natural progression by Hrodvitnir · · Score: 1

    The people will police themselves when the law cannot. It's just sad to think that the one true hack that can't be completely controlled is the human one. Social engineering will be around as long as people fail to get a clue.

    --
    "There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
    1. Re:Natural progression by belarm314 · · Score: 1

      From a t-shirt at defcon:

      "Social Engineering: because there is no patch for human stupidity"

      --
      When moderating, assume I have not yet had my coffee.
    2. Re:Natural progression by pHatidic · · Score: 1

      Death.

    3. Re:Natural progression by belarm314 · · Score: 1

      i'd consider that closer to a low-level format than a patch, but good point ;-)

      --
      When moderating, assume I have not yet had my coffee.
    4. Re:Natural progression by fnj · · Score: 1

      The people will police themselves when the law cannot.

      Or WILL not.

    5. Re:Natural progression by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      From a t-shirt at defcon:

      "Social Engineering: because there is no patch for human stupidity"
      They're not hacking the phishing sites, they're just applying the "get a clue you fucking n00b" patch :-)
  16. Report yourself to the authorites? by songofthephoenix · · Score: 1

    Even though its not legal what the 'white hat hackers' are doing - Who is going to put in a report against them? If the phishers report them, they end up reporting themselves to the authorities in the same instance. By the way, most comic book heroes are known as vigilantes - small price to pay, dont you think?

    1. Re:Report yourself to the authorites? by Thu25245 · · Score: 1

      Who is going to put in a report against them?

      The scammers' ISP?

      "This guy hacked one of our customers' sites! Lock him up!"

    2. Re:Report yourself to the authorites? by Adrilla · · Score: 5, Funny

      By the way, most comic book heroes are known as vigilantes

      Well most comic book heroes have great powers, or amazing tools and weapons and um...oh yeah...They Don't Exist!

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    3. Re:Report yourself to the authorites? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Who is going to put in a report against them?

      That depends. If they deface a site with goatse...
      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Report yourself to the authorites? by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      Well most comic book heroes have great powers, or amazing tools and weapons and um...oh yeah...They Don't Exist!

      Thank you! ...you just ruined my illusions. Next time you'll say there's no Santa.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    5. Re:Report yourself to the authorites? by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

      Next time you'll say there's no Santa.

      Don't let anyone tell you that.

    6. Re:Report yourself to the authorites? by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Well most comic book heroes have great powers, or amazing tools and weapons and um...oh yeah...They Don't Exist!

      How would you know if my tool is amazing or not?

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. Retribution by athakur999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a little PHP script that I use whenever I get a phishing email. The script generates fake credit card numbers, expiration dates, etc. and repeatedly hits the phishing site's form dumping in random info.

    Any halfway intelligent phisher would record the IP address of each submission and just dump all of mine when he saw there were bogus, but it makes me feel good that I at least wasted some of his time ;)

    --
    "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    1. Re:Retribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just think if Visa did this. Only instead of "fake", they use honeytokens: Cards which, once used, are immediately flagged. Black Helicopters swoop in and arrest the baddie. You know, like in that documentary "Enemy of the State".

    2. Re:Retribution by jarich · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I have a little PHP script that I use whenever I get a phishing email

      Come on... post the script!

    3. Re:Retribution by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wouldn't be surprised if law enforcement actually used this technique.

      Seriously, how hard is it to find a phishing site's servers and the owners? I forward links, emails w/headers, whois info (one guy had his real name, address, etc. in the whois for the domain!), etc. to the authorities any time I get the emails. If you can find the hosting company, server, etc. and track down the account owner, that might work.
      But if that information is false, giving them a valid account with a "honeytoken" like you describe would be a great way of continuing your search. It's more likely that the scammer has taken precautions on their hosting account than they will when they try to use the invalid account information.

    4. Re:Retribution by lheal · · Score: 4, Funny

      >You know, like in that
      >documentary "Enemy of the State".

      Yeah, I wish Time had put documentaries in their Top 100 films list. That one surely would have been right there.

      Did you notice how the mainstream media just ignored that, treating it like just another movie?

      I added another layer of foil to the bomb shelter after I saw it.

      --
      Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    5. Re:Retribution by Hao+Wu · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The script generates fake credit card numbers, expiration dates, etc. and repeatedly hits the phishing site's form dumping in random info.

      Another benefit- if the scammer tries using these fake credit cards, it's a major alarm bell to the banks. It could very well make them get caught and convicted.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    6. Re:Retribution by jaeson · · Score: 1

      Better yet, run your connections to the phishing site through some open proxies. This will yeild enough different IP addresses that you would be extremely difficult to detect.

      I wouldn't mind having a copy of that script BTW.

    7. Re:Retribution by wft_rtfa · · Score: 1

      You could spoof your IP by changing the IP source address header, but you won't see the response from the post.

      --
      :-] :0 :-> :-| :->
    8. Re:Retribution by Raindance · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hah. Good idea.

      I hope you're giving the phishing sites numerically valid credit card numbers- essentially there's a checksum hidden in a card number. Phishers can screen out completely randomly generated card numbers because their checksum doesn't match.

      Here's a link to the algorithm*
      http://www.beachnet.com/~hstiles/cardtype.html

      Enjoy.

      *No, reverse-engineering the algorithm won't generate a valid card, but it'll generate a "not obviously invalid" card.

    9. Re:Retribution by athakur999 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's not much to it. Here was the last one I used. In this case it was bank site asking for an ATM card number, PIN number, etc. Adapting it to other sites wouldn't be hard. The way I'm generating numbers would probably get rejected if you tried to use it for credit card numbers but this particular phishing script didn't seem to do any verification so I didn't bother...

      for ($i = 0; $i 100; $i++) {

      $ssn = sprintf("%03d%02d%04d", rand(100, 999), rand(0, 99), rand(0, 9999));
      $cardnumber = sprintf("%04d%04d%04d%04d", rand(0, 9999), rand(0, 9999), rand(0, 9999), rand(0, 9999));
      if (rand(0,1)) $cardnumber .= rand(0,9);

      $expmonth = sprintf("%02d", rand(1, 12));
      $expyear = rand(2005, 2011);
      $cardpin = sprintf("%04d", rand(0, 9999));

      for($len=10,$r1='';strlen($r1)$len;$r1.=chr(!mt_ ra nd(0,2)?
      mt_rand(48,57):(!mt_rand(0,1)?mt_rand(65 ,90):mt_ra nd
      (97,122))));

      for($len=10,$r2='';strlen($r2)$len;$r2.=chr(!mt_ ra nd(0,2)?
      mt_rand(48,57):(!mt_rand(0,1)?mt_rand(65 ,90):mt_ra nd
      (97,122))));

      $email = "{$r1}@{$r2}.com";

      echo "$ssn\n$cardnumber\n$expmonth\n$expyear\n$cardpin\ n$email\n";

      $ch = curl_init();
      curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_POST, 1);
      curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_POSTFIELDS, "ssn={$ssn}&cardnumber={$cardnumber}&expmonth={$ex pmonth}&expyear={$expyear}&cardpin=
      {$cardpin}&em ail={$email}&statement=&btnContinue0. x=64&btnContinue0.y=9");
      curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_URL, 'http://www.ewwf.ro/KeyBank/enroll.php');
      curl_se topt($ch, CURLOPT_USERAGENT, 'Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040929 Firefox/0.10
      ');
      curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_REFERER, 'http://www.marumitu.com/KeyBank/enroll_auth.html' );
      curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER, 1);
      curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_HEADER, 1);
      curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_TIMEOUT, 300);
      $result=curl_exec($ch);
      curl_close($ch);

      }

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    10. Re:Retribution by serutan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have a little PHP script that I use whenever I get a phishing email...

      Post it on Planet Source Code -- thousands of people could be using it tomorrow.

    11. Re:Retribution by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      While I do like your wasting their time and potentially helping them get caught by supplying false data, I would have to say becareful.

      A bunch of places get really annoyed if you supply false CC information (or so they say).
      Just becareful that the generating false CC numbers don't get you in trouble

    12. Re:Retribution by Westacular · · Score: 1

      Credit card numbers have a number of properties encoded in them, including a simple checksum. It would take only a trivial amount of processing to rule out the vast majority of the numbers generated by your script.

    13. Re:Retribution by Masa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One question:

      What if you generate and submit a valid, existing, card number by accident?

    14. Re:Retribution by SteelV · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wouldn't it be ironic if one of your randomly generated entries actually turned out to be a real person, with all the correct information, and he got it stolen because of that? Highly, highly unlikely, but interesting to think about.

    15. Re:Retribution by opec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A bunch of places get really annoyed if you supply false CC information (or so they say).
      Just becareful that the generating false CC numbers don't get you in trouble


      Huh? Are you saying he should be careful to not annoy the scammers? That's the entire point of the exercise.

    16. Re:Retribution by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      hmm, one could then write a script that generates a text file full of "valid" numbers. then the anti-phish script can randomly pull them out. you can leave the first script running one day when you go to work :-)

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    17. Re:Retribution by kiddailey · · Score: 1

      I've created a similair script that uses a variety of techniques to make the data look incredibly realistic. It:
      • Uses a set of dictionary files consisting of over 90,000 first and last names and 2000 actual US cities.

      • Generates valid visa and master card numbers that validate with the standard algorithm test.

      • Generates email addresses using the false identities name (or parts of it) as well as a combination of city names and random characters for the domains.

      • Generates authentic looking street addresses and telephone numbers.

      Aside from that, it also generates other needed data that phishers are often looking for: birthdates, social security numbers, etc. Eventually, I'm planning on making it so that phone number area codes and zip codes actually match the state that is selected at random. It also doesn't post to external forms yet, but it will soon enough :)
    18. Re:Retribution by straybullets · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm, and if you try enough times you might even give them valid series of number/date/names ! John Smith will be soooo happy to he finds his account zeroed by your script !!

      --
      With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
    19. Re:Retribution by akadruid · · Score: 1

      The odds are against you generating a real credit card number. The system is designed that way as a security measure. The set of valid numbers is some huge multiple of the issued cards, and when you tie that in with the necessity of providing valid supporting information...

      anyway, if you could do that, then you could expect to see people brute forcing amazon's payment system in the same way.

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
    20. Re:Retribution by Kahlus · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I don't think having a file full of "valid" credit card numbers on my machine is such a good idea if the Feds come knocking ;)

    21. Re:Retribution by athakur999 · · Score: 1

      What'd be ironic is if the script happened to turn out MY exact information. Doh!

      Anyway, the chance of a script turning out the right credit number AND expiration date AND CVV number AND billing address is probably close enough to 0 for the few hundred fake entries I produce that I'm not too worried about.

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    22. Re:Retribution by m50d · · Score: 1

      Then the banking system is broken and needs fixing. If he can do this, and it makes money for the phisher, the phisher could have done it to start with.

      --
      I am trolling
    23. Re:Retribution by FxChiP · · Score: 1

      While your idea is intriguing, please try to stay away from the generating of social security numbers. If you happen to "generate" *MY* social security number, I will be very upset and have to make you mysteriously disappear to the bottom of Lake Superior.

      In all seriousness, I'd kinda... stay away from that. There's a better chance that credit card numbers will not exist than social security numbers, probability-wise. Or am I wrong?

    24. Re:Retribution by kiddailey · · Score: 1


      Don't panic :) The SSNs that are generated aren't really valid numbers. They just don't look as obvious as 123-45-6789 or 000-00-0000.

      Statistically speaking though, I would guess that the statistical chances of generating a valid number randomly for either is probably compareable though.

      Like I said though, my app makes invalid SSNs that look almost real. In the case of credit cards numbers, I may have actually increased the odds of a valid and working number since the ones my app generate can be validated algorithmically already.

  19. Where are the authorities? by Sathias · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So where is the FBI and the DHS when you need them? I would have thought that outright fraud would be considered more of a crime than downloading a crappy quality avi of a movie. Obviously the money of rich people like George Lucas is more of a priority than that of normal citizens. We are quickly becoming a society where the most heinous act you can commit is to put a dent into company profits.

    --
    Blessed are the 1337, for they shall pwn the earth.
    1. Re:Where are the authorities? by fnj · · Score: 3, Funny

      So where is the FBI and the DHS when you need them?

      Having a doughnut.

  20. Be wary of... by xquark · · Score: 2, Informative

    The links these so-called vigilantes place on those de-faced sites saying:

    "link to the bank's real web site" ;)

    he he he he he he :D

    Regards

    Arash Partow

    ________________________________________________ __
    Be one who knows what they don't know,
    Instead of being one who knows not what they don't know,
    Thinking they know everything about all things.
    http://www.partow.net/

    --
    Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
  21. Old West theme by UlfGabe · · Score: 1

    In keeping with old west customs, when hijacking a web page use the following phrases:

    "YEEEE HAWWWWW, RIDE 'em cowboy"

    "I know what your thinking, did I use 5 scripts or did I use 6, well today is your lucky day, punk."

    "SSHHHAANNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    im out of ideas, feel free to continue

    --
    Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
    1. Re:Old West theme by CelticWhisper · · Score: 1

      SHAAAAANNNNEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Yes? What do you want?






      (La, la la, random parenthetical nonsense, lameness filter circumvention is fun)

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    2. Re:Old West theme by crymeph0 · · Score: 1

      "This server ain't big enough for the two of us"

      --
      It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    3. Re:Old West theme by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      {The Duke's voice} "Well I wanna tell ya, little pardner ... they caught me at the Passport!"

      "Good ... bad ... I'm the guy with the Sun."

      "You're going to need a bigger disk."

      "I'm here to kick BASH or chew bubble gum ... and I"m all outa gum."

      "Badges? BADGES? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges."

      "Say hello to my little friend."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Old West theme by Vombatus · · Score: 1

      Dirty Harry was a western?

      --
      This sig is intentionally blank
  22. Only from Cowboy Neal by axonal · · Score: 1

    We'd only expect an article about the Old West and technology from Cowboy Neal.

  23. Hacker Man! by clayasaurus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hacker-man, Hacker-man
    Does whatever a hacker can
    pwns fake websites, any size
    Catches phishers, just like flies
    Look out! There goes the Hacker-man!

    Is he strong? Listen, Bud!
    He's got caffinated blood.
    Can he type from a chair?
    Take a look over there.
    Hey there, there sits the Hacker-man!

    In the chill of night,
    At the scene of the crime
    Like a streak of light
    He arrives just in time

    Hacker-man, Hacker-man
    Friendly neighborhood Hacker-man
    Wealth and fame, he's ignored
    Action is his reward

    To him, life is a great big bang-up
    Wherever there's a scam-up
    You'll find the Hacker-man!

    1. Re:Hacker Man! by bfree · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I actually took a minute to figure out what the music was meant to be. I guess even on slashdot a parody of Particle Man by They Might Be Giants was a bit optimistic!

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    2. Re:Hacker Man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Particle Man" is itself a take-off on an older, comics-inspired tune about your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.

    3. Re:Hacker Man! by kfg · · Score: 1

      How the hell do you people come up with songs like that?

      Used to be you sent $20 to a post office box in Schenectady and they mailed you a song back. Now you PayPal 'em $100 (inflation) and they email you one.

      KFG

    4. Re:Hacker Man! by idonthack · · Score: 1

      How the hell do you people come up with songs like that? Very easily.

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
  24. Reminds me of... by hoka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a userfriendly comic where Pitr is upset at being spammed. He discovers that the mail servers are Linux and are inseucre. The next clip is of a guy behind a computer frowning at "su: user does not exist." Theres a followup comic where all of the spammers Internet Traffic are routed to Mars. "But Mars doesn't have any... oh." All this really means is that eventually phishers and scammers will get smarter and run TrustedBSD, OpenBSD, SELinux, or some other hardened variant using mainly static pages and highly developed systems. It's really a never ending battle.

    1. Re:Reminds me of... by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Informative

      All this really means is that eventually phishers and scammers will get smarter and run TrustedBSD, OpenBSD, SELinux, or some other hardened variant using mainly static pages and highly developed systems. It's really a never ending battle.

      According to a recent article, many phishing websites are run on already insecure systems that are hacked by the phishers. This is a "good" idea from their perspective, as it makes them harder to trace. However, in such cases, the only element of choice given to the phisher is whether or not to use that particular system. The only thing they can really do to counteract vigilantism is to patch the systems they hack into while leaving their own backdoors in place.

      You're definitely right, though, that if this vigilante trend picks up, the phishers will change methods in order to rip people off.

  25. Depends by Thu25245 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hacking into these legitimate companies doesn't do anything to hurt the scammers.

    If the vigilantes take down the scam site, then they may prevent some people from falling victim to it. It may not hurt the scammer, but it might protect the innocent.

    And, frankly, these "legitimate companies" should do more to prevent the use of their services for fraudulent purposes. Say, writing a script to search though the hosted material for the phrase "bank account" and flag any occurrences for human review.

    I can't say I approve of this behavior...but it might have a positive effect, as well.

    1. Re:Depends by ValiantSoul · · Score: 1

      "I can't say I approve of this behavior...but it might have a positive effect, as well."

      I can!

    2. Re:Depends by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      And, frankly, these "legitimate companies" should do more to prevent the use of their services for fraudulent purposes. Say, writing a script to search though the hosted material for the phrase "bank account" and flag any occurrences for human review. Better yet set up some honeypots and feed addresses out there to monitor for phishing E-mails. I'm sure some of the groups doing honeypot research would be more than happy to let banks put up some E-mail addresses too. Then they can actually have a real (gasp!) human monitor the addresses for phishing attacks against their own site at least and act quickly when they see them come in. Granted they'd need to use non-bank domains for their addresses but that shouldn't be hard to arrange. Hell I'd happily set up some addresses for them under my own domains for free if it'd help them out! I suspect lots of others would as well.

      But that'd probably be too easy.

  26. Re:well... by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

    fighting fire with fire sometimes works...

    That or it just makes a bigger fire.

    --
    24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  27. a better tactic? by bnitsua · · Score: 1

    it doesn't seem like defacing the site would send much of a message--aren't they generally hosted on compromised boxes, by someone who has hundreds of other compromised boxes?
    wouldn't it be a better idea to find the people behind them (it's not too hard...) and go from there?

    1. Re:a better tactic? by g-san · · Score: 1

      great idea. instead of making it obvious that the machine has been breached, put in a few stealth tools to track the phishers and spammers to get that one step closer to who/where they actually are. maybe shave a few lines off the cgi scripts that breaks them, makes the spammer/admin login and look around. once you get their location, then you can do the fanfaire, put their name and home address and everything else you have learned about them on the homepage:

      "WARNING: THIS SITE IS NOT YOUR REAL BANK. JIM SMITH AT address/phone number IS TRYING TO TRICK YOU AND STEAL YOUR MONEY! YOU MAY WISH TO REPORT HIM TO THE PROPER AUTHORITES."

      I think what these guys are doing, in keeping with the cowboy vigilante analogy, is burning down the outlaw's hide out. You didn't do much about the outlaws, they will just find a new hideout.

  28. Just another tale of... by indig0 · · Score: 1


    The white hats, the black hats, and the 1337...?

  29. Why didn't they create EFFECTIVE anti-phish system by iamcf13 · · Score: 2

    Instead of defacing websites?

    If they are smart and talented enough to break into a webserver, they could use those skills to set up some sort of clearinghouse for phish sites to avoid that could be done as some sort of proxy + RBL for phish sites. Better yet, program a web proxy program that does something simple:

    Compare the href tags in downloaded webpages with the displayed links. If the 'root' domains don't match, imbed a warning in the HTML page before it is sent to the browser for the user to see. The proxy could be programed to look out for spoofery involving internet giants like eBay PayPal and the like. Of course this could be construed as a copyright violation for modifying someone else's webpage (unless you happen to be Google with their Google Cache).

  30. Re:They missed something. by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "They missed a spot: http://www.microsoft.com/"

    Giggle giggle *SNORT* tee hee.

    Thanks for the laugh! My anti-M$ bias needed a little stroking today.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  31. Pointless it seems... by Oldest+European · · Score: 1

    online 'vigilantes' have started to take justice into their own hands by hacking into suspected fraud sites and defacing them

    Besides the fact that self justice generally is a bad idea, how pointless is it if there are thousands and thousands of those sites?

    And it seems pretty obvious to me that it will be easier to set up new sites than taking down existing ones.

    If you really want to do something against those scammers you need to follow the money trail.

    1. Re:Pointless it seems... by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Besides the fact that self justice generally is a bad idea, ...

      If you really want to do something against those scammers you need to follow the money trail.

      Following the money trail and actually getting to the phishers themselves seems far more dangerous than just backhacking their owned boxen.

    2. Re:Pointless it seems... by Oldest+European · · Score: 1

      Sure, and that's why nobody does it and spammers still have an easy live.

  32. this sounds good by slashdotnickname · · Score: 1

    but it's not going to make much of a difference. some reasons being... most scammers put up sites knowing that they'll be temporary and/or of little harm to their financial/legal status if taken down or investigated. hack all you want, it costs them nothing to put one up again. also, pretty much every human action is incentive driven... scammers are driven by the promises of easy money with very little start up costs, while those "hacking for justice" have the harder job of breaking into a site (at least harder than it would take to put one up) with only personal satisfaction as a payoff. the result being, there will always be more scammers than people fighting them... until the same incentive, like being paid to, exists.

  33. what was this article about... by nevdullc · · Score: 1

    ok,
    ..so some not so good guys doing some bad stuff
    (ie. hacking into webspaces (to host phishing sites (highly illegal))
    get their hacked stuff hacked into, by these good guy white hat hackers
    (super-Gandalfian data-magus overlords), who take over and expose
    (0wn3d 45535) the bad guys to show them who really has the net going on..
    so how does law and copyrights fit into all of this ,
    ... it's the wild f&*($'n west.
    get on yer horse and ride (use linux),

    /nev/dull/c

    --
    Cthulhu Saves -- in case He's hungry later.
    1. Re:what was this article about... by trick-knee · · Score: 1

      wow, too bad there's not a mod option like "sounds drunk".

    2. Re:what was this article about... by Zaulden · · Score: 1

      Using Linux will not prevent getting mass-mailed spam messages telling you to update bank info. It will also not prevent you from being a dumbass and typing in your credit card information into a fake form. Advice: Think before you type, Mr. Get On Your Horse.

      --
      "Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect
    3. Re:what was this article about... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Maybe not Linux per se, but KMail shows you very clearly just how fake these fake e-mails are. And if you take the {small} amount of time it takes to learn to use GNU/Linux, then you will most probably pick up a few clues along the way.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  34. Vigilante activism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Speaking of vigilante activism

    #!/usr/bin/perl
    # This is a perl script I wrote to piss off the phishers. What this
    # script does is generate fake credit card numbers that look like real
    # credit card numbers. This way, I can add bogus information to
    # phishing sites that looks legitimate
    # License: Public domain
    sub verify {
    my($cardnum) = @_;
    my($a,$b,@cc);
    for($a = 0;$a < 16; $a++) {
    $cc[$a] = substr($cardnum,$a,1); }
    for($a = 0; $a < 16; $a+= 2) {
    $b = $cc[$a] * 2;
    if($b > 9) {
    $b -= 9;
    }
    $cc[$a] = $b;
    }
    $b = 0;
    for($a = 0 ; $a < 16; $a++) {
    $b += 0 + $cc[$a];
    }
    return $b % 10 == 0;
    }
    for(;;) {
    $d = "54"; # Some phishing sites only accept cards where the
    # first numbers look like they come from a bank
    # This looks like a generic US MasterCard number
    # (MasterCard is actually 5[1-5], but I'm too
    # lazy to make the second digit a random number
    # from 1 to 5)
    for($c = 2 ; $c < 16; $c++) {
    $d = $d . int(rand(10));
    }
    #print $d . "\n";
    if(verify($d) == 1) {
    print $d . "\n";
    sleep(1);
    }
    }

    1. Re:Vigilante activism by Apotsy · · Score: 1
      Why do you think credit card numbers have so many digits? It's to make the chances of that astronomically high.

      Not to mention the fact that they can (and do) avoid issuing cards whose numbers differ only by 1 or 2 digits.

      It is very difficult to get a false positive when trying to make up a credit card numbers. This is a deliberate security feature.

    2. Re:Vigilante activism by tfoudray · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Although this is a "neat trick to pull on phishers", what you don't realize is that if you do this, especially in an automated fashion like this, there is a chance (however small) that you'll hit someone's actual credit card numbers. It actually happens from time to time. call your bank for frequency on that. not too often, but it does happen.

      Moreover, most phishers have already obtained a company's credit card verification numbers, and can and will verify the numbers they get anyway. and I'm fairly certain that can be automated as well, anyway. Sure, you can take a couple of clock cycles. big deal.

    3. Re:Vigilante activism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Dude! Generate the first 15 digits randomly, then calculate the checksum digit. That's what I do when I, uh... never mind.

  35. Re:They missed something. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Whoever modded you "troll" must have no sense of humor. That's one of the funniest things I've seen lately.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  36. Re:Why didn't they create EFFECTIVE anti-phish sys by hey! · · Score: 1

    , they could use those skills to set up some sort of clearinghouse for phish sites to avoid that could be done as some sort of proxy

    Because it doesn't take much intelligence, talent or initiative to 0wn a web server that is running unpatched software?

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  37. Anarchy by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

    Its all well and good until someone feels cheated by a real bank, and defrauds their site. Justice is best handled by an organized police force. To bad no such thing really exists on the internet.

    1. Re:Anarchy by lifeblender · · Score: 1

      "Too bad"? I don't know about that. There aren't international laws covering all internet usage, and police only exist to enforce laws. We have one example of actual internet enforcement, and that's China. Doesn't look like a very good example for ensuring freedom of expression. I prefer the current hazy legal status, where the only thing people can agree on is child pron.

      --
      Playing pornographics games during the day is evil! Play at night!
  38. "more legal" ways to to fight phishing? by PrometheuSx11 · · Score: 1

    I am currently discussing this topic on my site. Would harmlessly spoofing phishing sites in order to shock unsuspecting victims into learning about this particular danger be legal? eg: could you setup your own phishing site which instead of stealing info, instead educated the victim once they fell in the trap? or would this also be illegal?

    --
    --------------------- Turn evil by smiling.
    1. Re:"more legal" ways to to fight phishing? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The problem is how are you going to get people to go to your site for their "education"? Send out millions of spam like the phishing sites? Somehow, I think you'd become too much like the evil you're trying to combat ... sort of like certain governments in the current millenium.

    2. Re:"more legal" ways to to fight phishing? by PrometheuSx11 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking that I'd take a page from the viral marketing people and ask victims to volunteer their friends for similar warnings at the end of the process. That way I'd only need to get the word out amoung the tech savvy crowd, I'm guessing that the parents of the tech elite could use an illustrative demonstration more then a mere security lecture.

      of course I'd need to get people to trust the site...

      --
      --------------------- Turn evil by smiling.
  39. 2nd Amendment by lheal · · Score: 3, Funny

    I believe our Founding Fathers, well-versed in the technology of the day, said it best:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Sploits, shall not be infringed.
    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    1. Re:2nd Amendment by Eminence · · Score: 1

      I don't know why parent was moded funny. This ain't funny, this is insightful. State clearly can't cope with the real bad guys of the Internet - scammers, spammers, phishers - being too preoccupied with hunting down kids sharing music. It is all natural then that some would take justice into their own hands. Nature abhors a vacuum.

    2. Re:2nd Amendment by lheal · · Score: 1
      I don't know why parent was moded funny. This ain't funny, this is insightful.

      Actually, I was going for both. It should be clear to anyone in the Slasdot crowd that government(s) can't police the Internet without severe loss of freedom. The idea that the people, who ultimately are the government, need to police it themselves follows directly. Whether the government needs to be part of the solution is left to the ideology of the reader.

      But "Sploit" is just a funny word. Not LOL funny, but still.

      --
      Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
  40. Re:ddos by crymeph0 · · Score: 1

    That doesn't appear to be their method. They're taking the more old-school path of actually breaking into and defacing these sites.

    --
    It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
  41. Easy way to get phishing sites closed down by tyagiUK · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hack the phishing server, fire up a torrent tracker and post a link to some US chart music or movie downloads. ref: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/25/22 6228&tid=95&tid=17

    That way, the FBI, RIAA, MPAA will all be round there in about 10 minutes flat.

    --
    Contribute to the online videogame encyclopedia: GamerWiki
    1. Re:Easy way to get phishing sites closed down by cgreuter · · Score: 1

      Hack the phishing server, fire up a torrent tracker and post a link to some US chart music or movie downloads.

      Hmmm. Has anyone written a combined tracker/torrent link site program? You know, something that's both a tracker and a website for uploading torrent links? That way, you can piss off^W^Wkill two birds with one stone.

  42. someone is biased against horses by MichaelGospatrick · · Score: 2, Funny
    So maybe it's not a posse of horsemen

    I take issue with this statement. Yes horses are not as popular as they once were, but that doesn't mean they are completely out of the picture. Why you automatically assume that everyone else subscribes to your horseless worldview, I have no idea.

    --
    My genetic programming website: http://www.helpmefigurethisout.com/
  43. Zoro by V+0+!+D · · Score: 1

    "When Justice is outlawed. . .The just become the outlaws." I support them. It's another mark for Whitehat's. I only truly wish that more people would take it in to thier own to do what they do. They no doubt will be sought for defacing the websites. But, I'm almost certian that everyone here would agree that what they did is justice. When laws have restricted those from doing what the law can not do it only opens it up for more violaters. I say that our society should form a gathering to further promote justice that laws are bounded from. When some is being stabbed you would step in right? If you step in so will every one else with half a brain and a good heart.

  44. The Real Truth by Le_Papet · · Score: 2, Funny

    'Warning - This was a Scam Site...If you would like to aid us in our future attacks on scam sites please enter your credit card number and expiration date in the fields provided below.'

  45. Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Parent post is clearly a fake, it claims the code is Perl, but I could read and understand all of it.

    1. Re:Mod parent down by Stauf · · Score: 1

      Larry? Is that you?

    2. Re:Mod parent down by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      Oh my god, fake post?!? Quick, someone hack Slashdot and deface the site!!

      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  46. woo hoo! by MANIACmiller · · Score: 1

    POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

    --
    Although changed I rise again the same.
  47. This is actually more "old hat" than "white hat" by Hosiah · · Score: 1
    You got about a hundred entries in the jargon file documenting this kind of thing. Teergrubs, tiger teams, honey pots, etc. Fighting back against criminals is as old as the hills.

    But I still see the ultimate fighting back as assuring that there's no "back" to fight from, i.e. work around the spam/scamers, don't go where they lurk, and you'll have less fights to extricate yourself from!

    It has been noted, fighting back only gets you in trouble with the gov., while they go on coddling the assholes. The funny thing is, the decent people consistently fail to get a clue about who their government's favorite kind of person is, 'cuz then they'd move where they're more welcome, taking their IT skills with them.

  48. Re:Okay... by AdamTheBastard · · Score: 1

    If they were Irish what would they use the rope for?

  49. Hackers should know better. by Lally+Singh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Problems like these should be solved by technology. The time and energy of talented hackers is wasted on vigilanteism. The digital world has new rules and new capabilities.

    Sorry, I know good engineering work is harder, much less exciting, and much less satisfying than hacking the enemy directly, but why play whack-a-mole when you can make them obsolete? Ok, enough ranting. I hope y'all had fun.

    --
    Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
  50. I think I speak for most here when I say by empvirus · · Score: 1

    It's about time.

    --
    Sometimes I comment just to hear myself typing.
  51. Re:I'm not happy about this. by physicsphairy · · Score: 1
    You are either a scammer rationalizing your behavior or simply delusional. Joe Businessman does not fall for fake citibank websites. If he's one of these evil rich folks you despise so much, he probably doesn't even do his old accounting.

    The majority of people who fall for these scams are elderly persons (principally women) who have little internet experience and don't understand things like "http://68.12.34.5/wellsfargo" is probably not the real deal.

    That aside, I am at a loss to explain your argument against banks. Your words imply that you dislike them because they loan money to wealthy inviduals who create the dredded "corporations." I'm curious who is it that you think gives the "working stiff" a salary to put food on the table, anyway? Has it occurred to you that an "economy" is somehow involved in creating the wealth which finances things like homeless shelters? Do you realize how critical banks are to the economy? How many are you willing to toss into poverty to exact your vengeance on those so presumptuous as to be better off than yourself?

    At any event, as a college student, I can tell you that banks don't just give loans to the wealthy (I don't even have a regular job). And almost everyone, regardless of income level, has a bank account, from which they often make money off of having their money loaned to these evil rich.

  52. In a weird sort of way this is legal... by sllim · · Score: 1

    In the sense that if no one comes forward asking for charges to be pressed then it is legal.
    I mean, think about it, who would be asking for the charges to be pressed?
    The website owners. The very ones committing fraud. If they want to contact the government and say that some haxors are getting in there way of some harmless fraud then I say, go for it.

  53. All your base are belong to us by pio!pio! · · Score: 1

    Vigilante Hackers use Old West Tactics for Great Justice Move Zig

    1. Re:All your base are belong to us by TheUz · · Score: 1

      High five = )

      Figured somebody else would see the missed opertunity.

      Peace be unto you, likemind.

      --
      ^..^
  54. "brakes" by Omkar · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'd say you captured the spelling skills of those vigilantes. Judging by /., anyway.

  55. Re:Okay... by TimeForGuinness · · Score: 1
    Now you will recieve us! We do not ask for your poor or your hungry. We do not want your tired and sick. It is your corrupt we claim! It is your evil that will be sought by us. With every breath we shall hunt them down. Each day we will spill their blood, 'till it rains down from the skies! Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace! These are not polite suggestions. These are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost! There are varying degrees of evil. We urge you lesser forms of filth, not to push the bounds and cross over, into true corruption, into our domain. For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three and on that day YOU WILL REAP IT! And will send you to whatever god you wish.

    The Boondock Saints

  56. Re:I'm not happy about this. by WereTiger · · Score: 1

    The entirety of your statement is completely devoid of any signs of intelligence.

    This can only lead to the conclusion that you are, in fact, a lower form of life (akin to amoeba or possibly bacterial fungus) or someone endevoring to 'channel' some such thing.

    An alternate theory is that this is some form of free-form expresionist art. If that's the case I find it intreguing but reprehencible.

    A final alternate theory is that perhaps you are a small shell script gone awry.

    Perhaps we should have a poll? I'm curious about which theory most others would think more likely.

    --
    If you're hearing rhetoric about Linux, open source, or Mac and everyone's bashing Microsoft, you've found Slashdot.
  57. Self policing society by mollog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I see this as another example of the self-policing that goes on here on the internet. Slashdot is another example on several levels. For example, this forum provides a means for people to express their feelings about a variety of subjects. And this forum is not mob rule, we moderate each other, and we moderate the moderations. Inflammatory and extremist talk is not tolerated silently.

    On another level, Slashdot is the pulpit where the topic of freedom gets a lively and ongoing discussion. Freedom to use and create software, freedom to exchange ideas, data, tools, freedom of expression, etc., etc.

    The 'net is not quite the free-for-all that some believe. And this self-regulation, self-policing, self-examination that is already the norm, is proof of the responsibility and maturity of so many here who make the net what it is; a cool place now, and a thing of hope for the future. So the idea of people going out and disrupting bad behavior on the 'net is a virtual tradition. To me this is a very good sign.

    Let's continue working to keep the gummint's clumsy hands off the 'net. I know they made the net, but it has grown in size and importance because of public involvement.

    --
    Best regards.
    1. Re:Self policing society by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I see this as another example of the self-policing that goes on here on the internet. Slashdot is another example on several levels. For example, this forum provides a means for people to express their feelings about a variety of subjects. And this forum is not mob rule, we moderate each other, and we moderate the moderations. Inflammatory and extremist talk is not tolerated silently.
      Only so long as the inflammatory and extremist talk isn't something disliked by the Slashdot Hivemind... If it is, inflammatory and extremist talk is *encouraged* where it's not outright rewarded.
      • For instance, in the recent article about 911 and Vonage, virtually every post supporting Vonage and calling the victim 'stupid' was modded *up*, whereas virtually every one criticizing Vonage for it's misleading marketing material was modded *down*.
      • In a recent article about militarizing space, virtually every article criticizing the Administration and misreading the various treaties was modded *up*, while pointers to correct interpretations of the treary was modded *down*.
      • In virtually every article about the Shuttle, posts praising Soyuz are modded *up*, and posts pointing out that it's not as safe as propoganda would have you believe is modded *down*.
      The same can be seen in any article about MicroSoft, SCO, and a vast variety of other topics.

      Slashdot is indeed ruled by a mob - a mob extremely intolerant of dissident views and facts that fail to meet it's fore-ordained conclusions.

      On another level, Slashdot is the pulpit where the topic of freedom gets a lively and ongoing discussion. Freedom to use and create software, freedom to exchange ideas, data, tools, freedom of expression, etc., etc.
      Certainly - If you define 'freedom' as 'I can do whatever the hell the I want without any restrictions or respect for other peoples rights, except maybe the people I agree with'. The same Slashdot that gets annoyed about GPL violations is the same Slashdot who openly espouses theft of *other peoples* IP.

      And that's the ultimate tragedy of vigilante justice - it's almost always represents the views of the 'men on white horses', not those of society.

      The 'net is not quite the free-for-all that some believe. And this self-regulation, self-policing, self-examination that is already the norm, is proof of the responsibility and maturity of so many here who make the net what it is; a cool place now, and a thing of hope for the future.
      It's almost utterly unregulated and unpoliced - except for very small corners. And virtually all of those small corners are intolerant of anything 'not them'. They aren't about freedom - they are about bigotry and isolationism.
    2. Re:Self policing society by FidelCatsro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, but like all things , there are alot of bent Coppers (as in corupt) .
      Mob rule follows the loudest idiot and it can be rather dangerous if unatended . Not that i disgree in principle with swift vigilante justice against phishers , its just it can get out of hand .

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    3. Re:Self policing society by space_dude_27 · · Score: 1

      I disagree with the assertion that Slashdot is a wonderful example of self-policing. Sure, we all mod each other but the ultimate power to enforce the "law" still resides with the Slashdot admins. They may happen to deputise a rather large number of ordinary users in order to get the job done but it is they who are the law. It's not as though Slashdot relies on white-hat hackers to regularly hack in to the site and delete any nasty posts ;-)

    4. Re:Self policing society by saintp · · Score: 1, Insightful
      For those of you that don't have time to read that much text, here's a translation:
      <whining>A lot of people on /. have similar opinions, but since those opinions aren't mine I'll cry and bitch about a "hivemind." Don't you people understand that "consensus" and "agreement" are just fancy words for "oppression of dissent," and that "community" is slang for "intolerance"?</whining>
      Your long, stupid rant is currently modded half troll, half insightful. So much for a hivemind.
    5. Re:Self policing society by dug_silver · · Score: 1

      The viability of a self-policing society is a very loaded philosophical proposition. I think the issue here can be simplified.

      space_dude appeals to an ultimate authority that exists necessarily, maintaining the viability of self-policing society. Very deep dualism happening, yes.

      But imagine if slashdot admins had significantly less capability to regulate. In the issue at hand (phising sites), there is no woman-in-a-chair somewhere who can click-click the problem away. Even if this situation is ideal to protect people on the 'net from scammers, it is not an option.

      Of the given alternatives, I choose vigilantism over turning safety into another commodity (echoing thought: fuck the industry, I don't want to buy another anti-scammer software package, hear hear!). Furthermore, I haven't heard a better fix yet, so I won't reject the vigilantes on a basis of idealism, although I acknowledge space_dude's deeper considerations.

    6. Re:Self policing society by operagost · · Score: 1

      At least his long, stupid rant contains actual facts about moderation behavior on Slashdot; while your short, stupid rant contains no nutritional value whatsoever.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Self policing society by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Well, you see, it's like half of a hivemind.

  58. Here's a Site for You to Hack and Slash(dot) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Here's his lame phishing site: http://66.246.90.93/~testing/ebay/secupdate.html

    And here is full shell access to his web server via a web page: http://manta.dnsvelocity.com/~testing/cgi-bin/mzz. php

  59. "Old West Tactics" by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm a Middle East (1917-1995) Historian by day and an Old West Historian by night.

    This really isn't an "Old West" tactic, but a tactic used in the United States, UK and other nations with a tradition of Common Law or the inclusion of extensive non-statutory law reflecting a consensus of centuries of judgements by working jurists.

    As times changed laws became codified and the power of the People to enforce the law were erodded in the United States and other countries.

    A Judge had to own 500 acres of land without debt on the land and they had the power to cherry pick what they wanted in terms of the law for the circumstances. Law then was terrible complicated, looking at a History of American Law by Lawrence M. Friedman shows that it's terrible complex and not nearly codified enough to just throw out a list of laws and punishments. Since the law on the frontier was often a copy/paste affair and made up by the Judges and not codified, a Judge had the power to make up laws. Like Evesdroping in 1808 or Droping a Dead Body into a River in 1821. Federal Judges started to go wild with common law crimes after U.S. V. Hudson and Goodwin in 1812.

    This case allowed a Federal Judge or define a crime and issue a punishment for it. Codification would stop this by defining what was a crime, and stop a Judge from making up a crime.

    A Posse wasn't normally a group of people acting as vigilanties, but a Posse is a group deputized by a Law Enforcment agent (Town Marshal, Sheriff, Federal Agent, etc) for a fixed duration or event since communities didn't have large standing forces.

    Some examples from an essay I found on the web a while back while researching the law in the 1860s

    Citizen's Arrest

    Students of the law should note that both a statutory and common law basis for a certain degree of "vigilante behavior" is well founded. Indeed, in an era of lawlessness it is important that readers be advised as to their lawful right to protect their communities, loved ones and themselves by making lawful citizens' arrests.

    First, what is an arrest?

    We can thank Black's Law Dictionary for a good definition: "The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime." See Ex parte Sherwood, (29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S.W. 812).

    Historically, in Anglo Saxon law in medieval England citizen's arrests were an important part of community law enforcement. Sheriffs encouraged and relied upon active participation by able bodied persons in the towns and villages of their jurisdiction. From this legacy originated the concept of the posse comitatus which is a part of the United States legal tradition as well as the English. In medieval England, the right of private persons to make arrests was virtually identical to the right of a sheriff and constable to do so.

    A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Simply put, without firepower, people are less likely going to be able to make a citizen's arrest. A random sampling of the various states as well as the District of Columbia indicates that a citizen's arrest is valid when a public offense was committed in the presence of the arresting private citizen or when the arresting private citizen has a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a felony, whether or not in the presence of the arresting citizen.

    District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b) reads as follows:
    (b) A private person may arrest another -
    (1) who he has probable cause to believe is committing in his presence -
    (A) a felony, or
    (B) an offense enumerated in section 23-581 (a)(2); or
    (2) in aid of a law enforcement officer or special policeman, or other person authorized by law to make a

    1. Re:"Old West Tactics" by videha · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the term vigilante is not correct in this instance. From Encarta dictionary;

      law-enforcing citizen: somebody who punishes lawbreakers personally and illegally rather than relying on the legal authorities
      Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

      This seems more like crime prevention. One would hope that the prevention of a crime, especially without causing harm, would be considered a duty.

      I would like to say "good work" to the whitehats.

    2. Re:"Old West Tactics" by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      I'm a Middle East (1917-1995) Historian by day and an Old West Historian by night.
      Then why didn't you draw your conclusions bases on that, rather than a time (and place) you are obviously unfamiliar with?
      Historically, in Anglo Saxon law in medieval England citizen's arrests were an important part of community law enforcement.
      Historically, this was true because there was not a standing force of constables/policemen to perform arrests.
      Sheriffs encouraged and relied upon active participation by able bodied persons in the towns and villages of their jurisdiction.
      Of course they did. There might be one Shire Reeve for an area of several hundred square miles and a population of several thousand people. There weren't phones or cops with patrol cars.

      Drawing conclusions about what behavior should be like today - based on that of five hundred years ago and more is extremely dangerous. The reasons you cite for public involvement no longer hold.

    3. Re:"Old West Tactics" by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Vigilante, I think Encarta is incorrect there. There is nothing illegal about acting as a vigilante, unless in the course of action you break the law yourself. There are hundreds of years of legal and cultural tradition for vigilantes who work legally in the US/Commonwealth/Spanish systems.

    4. Re:"Old West Tactics" by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      "Drawing conclusions about what behavior should be like today - based on that of five hundred years ago and more is extremely dangerous. The reasons you cite for public involvement no longer hold."

      Nonsense, citizens have a right to enforce the law, from reporting illegal actions to citizen's arrest.

      Like I stated, various states have laws that protect and sometimes mandate a citizen take action if a crime is being committed.

      Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible. (See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

      Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code 37; S 43, 44.)

      Utah law permits citizen's arrest, but explicitly prohibits deadly force. (See Chapter 76-2-403.)

      Therefore your statment that I'm basing my conclusions on 500 year old law is invalid.

    5. Re:"Old West Tactics" by videha · · Score: 1

      My thought was that the negative conotations related to "vigilante" did not apply in this instance. I was not arguing against the concept of citizen justice. The actions of the whitehacks seem more like prevention than punishment. That would put it into a different catagory altogether. p.s. it was my first post and attached it to your post only because it was the last reference to "vigilante"

    6. Re:"Old West Tactics" by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      "Drawing conclusions about what behavior should be like today - based on that of five hundred years ago and more is extremely dangerous. The reasons you cite for public involvement no longer hold."

      Nonsense, citizens have a right to enforce the law, from reporting illegal actions to citizen's arrest.

      It seems that reading comprehension isn't a required skill for soi-disant historians. If you read my post you'll note that nowhere did I espouse a view citizens don't have such rights - nowhere.
      Therefore your statment that I'm basing my conclusions on 500 year old law is invalid.
      Did I state that your conclusions were based on 500 year old law? No. I outlined the reasons for the laws and social mores then, and indicated the dangers of drawing modern conclusions from social conditions there-and-then. Again, this is a skill common to most historians.
  60. Bad cop. No donut. by Animats · · Score: 1
    We need a service where you report a scam and pay a few dollars. The report is forwarded to the FBI along with a box of Krispy Kreme donuts.

    Remember the basic rule of the FBI: "Don't embarass the Bureau." Visualize TV coverage of truckloads of donuts arriving at the Hoover Building.

    The FBI's excuse for not solving crimes is supposedly that they're working on terrorism, but that's what we pay Homeland Security $33 billion for.

  61. Re:I'm not happy about this. by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

    Think about how much banks contribute to society; some fat bastard sits there in a fancy building, waiting for someone who doesn't need money, to come in and deposit their riches that they stole off the working class stiffs. Then mr. piggy-banker gives the rich man more money so they start another (legal) scam called a *corporation*.

    Sure am glad I borrowed money to go to college and borrow more to buy a house before you decided to kill the banking system.

    Banks may have some bad parts, but without one, I'd be renting and paying money to The Man rather than owning the place I live in.

    - Working Stiff

  62. and yet by electricdream · · Score: 1

    We have to protect ourselves, and yet the Department of Homeland Security has no problem stepping up to the plate and prosecuting people like elitetorrents.org, and the FBI has no trouble finding time to requisition the servers of www.indymedia.org .

    Sure am glad at least somebody is looking out for me.

    --
    -- force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins ayn rand
  63. Re:They missed something. by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    This clearly demonstrates the need to separate mod point (+ or -) from mod type - this would be a +1 Troll in any sane world ...

    ... or maybe we can just convince the hackers that there's a terrible injustice being done by slashmath?

  64. No actually they can't by infonography · · Score: 1

    The issue isn't an illegal act that can be proscuted it's an illegal act outside of the practical reach of the law. However the lack of power of the law to reach the crooks will also protect the White Hats to some extent.

    What happens in Ebonia Stays in Ebonia.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  65. To this: "And we'll raise up our glasses... by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
    Against evil forces Singing, "Whiskey for our geeks, beer for their horses!" --Toby Keith (not without some modifications, that is, I mean... um, the lyrics, not Toby Keith... oh, shut up)

    What are the phishers going to do anyway? Complain to the FBI that some bad person took down their fake bank? Heh, probably...

    These vigilantes better watch out, though. Law enforcement has a way of coming down harder on people who make them look like they're not doing their jobs, whether that's true or not, and especially if it's true.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  66. This is not necessarily a good thing... by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

    Contrary to apparently popular mentality, this is not a good thing. Laws exist for a reason. If they can find these servers and hack/deface them, then they should be able to search the drives and find out whom the owners are (or where they are coming from). From that point, they could be sued and further legal action could be brought. Defacing the sites only makes the bad guys remaster their machines/relocate them, or harden their systems more.

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  67. Well, that explains it all by pg110404 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here I am, minding my own business, trying to protect people by setting up a very similar web site to their bank so I can "store" their credit card numbers for them, and some jackass goes and defaces my web site.

    I never felt so insulted in all my life. Well, then. If that's people's gratitude, I'll just stop that and if they lose their credit cards, they're on their own.

  68. Re:I'm not happy about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    *Massively ignorant rant deleted.*

    -- Don't hate me cuz I'm ugly

    Good news, we hate you because you're stupid, your looks never came up.

  69. Re:Zorro by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    They no doubt will be sought for defacing the websites
    ... not by the cops, that's for sure. It would be like the crack whore who complained to the cops that she had been ripped off for $20 because some dude sold her a fake rock ...

    ... and not by the ISPs, who are going to make more money by selling the phisher a second, third, or 100th account ...

    I agree that what they did was justice, and justifiable. If the phishers aren't happy, they're free to "tell it to the judge", but I don't think they'll be in too much of a hurry to do that.

  70. I have an idea by iawix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could someone tell these guys to bring down all those Al Qaeda (and assorted copycats) websites with beheadings and terrorist messages on them?

    --
    FAA Certified Flight Instructor
    1. Re:I have an idea by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Of course not! Attacking white-collar, white male criminals is okay -- but the second you start attacking muslim criminals, you're an intolerant islamophobe.

      I'm all for much, much more drastic measures against both the media outlets and the people spewing such violent anti-american and anti-israeli hatred (and I'm not even jewish) but thats something most people aren't willing to do, because they know if they do, they're liable to have their throat slit -- even if they live in downtown Manhatten.

  71. Where there is lack a of justice .. by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

    The only thing evil needs to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
  72. It was fake; here's the real one by rkuris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    #!/usr/bin/perl
    do {
    my ($cc, $sum) = '54' . (join '', (map { $_ = int rand 10 } (1..13))) . '0';
    foreach $digit (split //, $cc) { $sum += $digit; }
    foreach $digit (split /.(.)/, $cc) { $sum += $digit; }
    $cc =~ s/.$//;
    print $cc, 9 - ($sum % 10), "\n"
    } while (sleep 1);

    --
    Get rid of everything Micro and Soft: Buy Viagra and/or Linux
    1. Re:It was fake; here's the real one by Cow+Jones · · Score: 1

      FYI,
      assuming that the grandparent's verify function has the correct algorithm,
      your code does *NOT* generate valid CC numbers.

      And by the way, if you want to show off terse/cryptic Perl code, do it right:

      #!/usr/bin/perl
      do{($_,$*)='54'.join($,,map{int rand 10}1..13);$|=!$|;$*+=($|=!$|)?$_:$_
      *2-($_>4?9:$[ )for(split//);$*%=10;print$_.($*?10- $*:$[).$/}while sleep 1

      I'm sure this can be golfed futher, but beware of the spaces that Slash will insert if your lines get too long :)

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
  73. Loose/Lose by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

    Is it strictly a /. phenomenon that rich bastards, etc. loose things instead of losing them? Maybe this spelling anomaly is confined to those in the community who do not use banks but instead stuff their hard-earned dollars in holes strategically cut into hard-to-find places on their mattresses. I hope they do not loose their secret mattress treasure maps.

    --
    I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
  74. Long overdue. by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    Too bad this is all they can do to these scums.
    A good and thorough thrashing would do wonders on these low lifes.

    I fully, 100% support the actions of these vigilantes. When the law fails or refuses to distribute justice, it falls to the people to take the law into their own hands.

    Thank you to everyone involved and keep up the great work!!

  75. Re:If only they could hack the email servers as we by toygeek · · Score: 1

    ravenspear, that is the funniest thing I've read on the interweb in WEEKS. TRULY clever writing. I'm saving that piece for a colleague

  76. Phishing and organized crime by westlake · · Score: 1

    It worries me that no one here has given a thought to who may be behind these scams. Organized crime may be behind phishing "Fools rush in" and all that.

    1. Re:Phishing and organized crime by Tongo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh. My. God. We must stop that evil hydrogen NOW! Think of the children!!

  77. Too bad... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    ...the people running those fraudulent sites will end up getting the hackers thrown in prison for terrorism or something.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  78. Slippery slope not a valid argument? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the second link in your google links...

    "This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious."

    ie: The strength of the slippery slope argument can be measured by calculating probability of (A leading to B) and (B leading to C) and (C Leading to...) Unless one of those probabilities is zero, it is a valid chain of logical reasoning.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Slippery slope not a valid argument? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      In deductive logic, an argument form is valid if given true premises of the correct form, the conclusion is true. Hence, for a slippery-slope argument to be valid in this sense, the probabilities must be 1.

      Of course, the argument may still have some inductive force.

  79. mod parent up! by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

    lol, where are my mod points when I need them

    --
    Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
  80. It's the only scaleable counter-attack by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I am normally not for vigalante justice.

    But in this case no-one is being hurt. The only thing that happens is some innocent people cannot use the fake website. It's not like a DDOS attack on a Phisher site (which causes very real problems for others), it's a sublte and free manipulation of the world that really has no downside.

    Sort of related is an article I just read today, basically noting that in a world where people can so easily reach out for information they are better off with news and help from people who know more than "officals" who are inherantly removed from the situation do. In the same way why should we wait for the goverment crackdown of Phishers than can never fully come because of resource drain, and instead fix the problem as best we can? Defacing Phishing sites seems like an optimal approach as it denies them the reason (money) for continuing.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  81. Re:Okay... by brilinux · · Score: 1

    How is this flaimbait? I was making a reference to the movie Boondock Saints, which explores the idea of two Irish vigilantes in Boston who kill the criminals in the city who would not otherwise be persecuted. It was certainly not meant as a flame, and rather relevant to the discussion if you caught the reference. I apologize to any offended, though I must say that my last name is O'Hanlon!

  82. Re:Okay... by brilinux · · Score: 1

    And that should be prosecuted, and mentally fix all the other spelling errors as well.

  83. respects by the_odin · · Score: 1

    Once again we(I) bow and pay our(my) respects to the boys(and girls) in black(or whatever color they may have on) Thank you. I think in a land that has almost no enforcement, it is nice to have these individuals who will help the vulnerable. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want it a harshly controlled environment, where you say the wrong thing and get in trouble; but i think for these individuals to take on this, is actually a noble thing for them to do... heheh.. next thing you know, they will be writing worms that use a newly found vulnerability of a piece of software, or OS, and automaticly patch the whole before it can be exploited. and then make it so it is self terminating after a certain date.

  84. So when will we get a spamcop like site for this ? by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

    How long before we see some spamcop like site for reporting phising (sp?) sites ?

    I know I've had varing degrees of success with dealing with some of the scams I've recieved in the email. I think the quickest I've had was getting the site removed within 1 hour (of me getting the email advertising it).

    The problem is getting sites in places like Russia etc removed. It's a case of Email through a server in china, whois info has an address in Brazil and the site is hosted in an ex-eastern block country.

  85. Aww, defacing a web site? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Call me when they're beating the crap out of them and kicking them out of the saloon, like that scene in "Unforgiven" where the Sheriff goes all midevil on Eastwood's ass...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  86. Re:Old west? by Lillesvin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. He wasn't leading some vigilante lynch mob.

    That aside I think it's kind of alright. Not that I think this sort of vigilance is the best solution I can think of - but if nobody else is doing anything about it, then why not let them. But as always, there's an incedibly thin line between this (good) kind of vigilance and the bad kind. Let's hope that it's not a trend that catches on too much.

    --
    "Live free or don't."
  87. _nospam by Dark+Stranger · · Score: 1

    My email address contains _nospam, so far so good.

  88. Not just one law is being broken.. by penix1 · · Score: 1

    "This is particularly true where the nature of an act (like some innovative new form of online fraud, for example) hasn't been really contemplated by the justice system before."

    Although fraud is the strongest law in just about every country for this sort of thing it isn't the only international law being broken. For one, there is trademark law. I would think companies would fight for their trademarks more. In every phising case the fraudster uses the trademarks to foster confusion. That is different from the clasical brick & morter fraud scam. It isn't like your brick & morter scammers can hang a shingle out saying, "Chase Manhattan Bank" and be taken seriously.

    B.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  89. COME ON, DO IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    http://www.aa419.org/vampire/ladvampire.html

    Just repeating the URL for clarity's sake.

    EVERYBODY, open that URL in a new window/tab and let it run. You can have it in the background or minimise it. In fact, make it your start page if you don't already have any useful start page.

    Let's use the Slashdot effect for something good - overloading nigerian scammers' fake websites.

  90. COME ON, LET'S DO IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://www.aa419.org/vampire/ladvampire.html

    I'm hijacking this spot to repeat an important post made further down the page.

    EVERYBODY, open that URL in a new window/tab and let it run. You can have it in the background or minimise it. Bookmark it. In fact, make it your start page if you don't already have any useful start page.
    "The Lad Vampire" automatically reloads images from fake bank websites used by scammers, exhausting their bandwidth quota.

    Let's use the Slashdot effect for something good - overloading nigerian scammers' fake websites.

    1. Re:COME ON, LET'S DO IT! by techmeltz · · Score: 1

      any idea about how this site affects users that go through a proxy server? I ahve that page loaded in a different tab, but I am concerned that all I am doing is pounding the proxy server at my work.

      --
      [This space for rent]
  91. tromping scammers by u-238 · · Score: 1

    this reminds me of a board script kiddy friend of mine. 15 year old kid with bot-nets in the septuple digits.

    often when he was utterly bored he would ask me to give him something to take down. after about 15 minutes of watching television commercials, i'd have a good collection of URL's from bunco scams like www.11homebusiness.com.

  92. Fools and their money are soon parted by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    For chuff's sake, get a chuffing grip!

    The only people who fall for these things are the ones with no common sense. They are the same ones who, a few thousand years ago, would have been some wild creature's dinner. That's one of the reverse benefits {malefits?} of progress; it has allowed people to survive who would otherwise have perished through simple unfitness to do so, in turn lowering the mean fitness-for-survival of the human race as a whole. Nature keeps coming up with dafter and dafter idiots, but thanks to our idiot-friendly society, the wolves and the tigers are still starving.

    For starters, why the chuff would a bank with which you don't even have an account send you an e-mail message? And why the chuff would they use a strangely-named GIF image of some awkwardly-phrased and badly-spelt text, asking you to confirm or update your details and including a bunch of meaningless words? Why the chuff would your own bank send you almost the same message -- but with a few changes to the "text" and a different name for the GIF image?

    No bank would ever ask you to confirm your details in such an insecure way as over the Internet. No bank will ever ask you for your payment card PIN -- if it ever gets lost, they will just send you a new card and PIN. Similarly with passwords -- you pick a new one. The plaintext is never stored, just the scrambled form. What you entered is re-scrambled, and only the scrambled forms are compared. And if you want to update anything like your address if you move house or your name if you get married, you have to fill out a stackload of forms in a branch, in front of Bank staff.

    You don't need to be a full-on computer security expert to know all this. You just need to have a bit of common sense, and to have read the literature the bank were legally obliged to give you when you opened your account.

    IMHO, if you are stupid enough to get hit by a phishing scam, you deserve to lose everything -- and stand as an example to the rest of us. So we can say "Ha ha, at least I'm not that stupid" or "Oo-er, I'd better be careful".

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    1. Re:Fools and their money are soon parted by MinotaurUK · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points I'd mod this up. Most phishing scams out there are so blatently obvious to even non-technically minded people. The apalling spelling is usually a dead giveaway.

      Perhaps there's a good lesson here for the banks though - they really do need to improve the quality of information they provide their customers with (e.g. a document detailing exactly what details they will and will not ask for online).

  93. Re:I'm not happy about this. by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    There are almost no "working class" people left anymore in our disposable society. We all have mobile phones, computers and DVD players in the glorious reign of Tony Blair -- therefore we cannot, by definition, be working-class! The real jobs have been exported overseas, and all we have left is a consuming class: if they have jobs at all, it is something crap like sanitising telephones or cutting sandwiches {until kitchen knives are banned for safety reasons; then we will all have to put up with imported frozen sandwiches and pay the former sandwich-cutting former taxpayers dole money}. In the end, they will have no useful skills to help them survive: They need the Company's wages {to buy their naff polyester tracksuits, daft boots and counterfeit Burberry bags} more than The Company needs their labour. It is the Capitalist Wet Dream come true.

    Why not get involved with your local LETS, offering a service to completely de-Microsoft people's computers and train them up in the use of Firefox {Web}, OpenOffice {word processing}, Evolution {e-mail} and PHPMyAdmim {database}? If you can do enough work for enough people, then you can almost end up doing without pound notes altogether. I say almost because there some things you still need to buy for which there aren't yet any shops that accept payment by barter.

    First and foremost, the cost of housing needs to be brought down by any means necessary. Impose a duty on house sales: the higher the price, the higher the duty. Invest this money in building more council houses. When renting a home is cheaper than buying one {as it should be -- after all, you pay rent for as long as you live in a place, but you only pay a mortgage for a fixed term}, house prices will come down.

    And if you have a bank account, remember you will end up paying for the phishing scams ..... the bank won't be able to afford to pay you so much interest on your account if they have to reimburse some stupid rich tosser who fell for a phishing scam.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  94. Jury nullification is not good enough by jschottm · · Score: 1

    If it's common sense, regardless of the law, the people (in the form of a jury) can make it legal.

    Jury nullification may mean that the accused doesn't go to jail/prison or face fines, but that doesn't mean that life is easy. Simply being arrested (regardless of conviction) can be devastating to many people in high tech professions. It will show up on background checks, it will keep you from getting security clearances...

    I'm not commenting either way on the vigilantes, I'm just pointing out that jury nullification doesn't make something legal, it just means that the government doesn't punish you directly.

  95. They're doing the right thing by wnarifin · · Score: 1

    For me they're doing the thing that should been done by for long time by the authority. Well done.

  96. Reasonable Force by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

    If someone attempts to rob from myself or someone else in the street, I am allowed to restrain that person and prevent the crime if I have the capability, even if the acts against that person would nominally be illegal (for example restraining them or knocking a knife out of thier hand). How is this significantly different? The owners of these sites are commiting a felony, and those who take out the sites are preventing a crime. If they attack a site which was legitimate or destroy someone elses property then they undergo due process, thats why you must be very careful when intervening to prevent a crime. However there is nothing illegal (or wrong for that matter) with preventing the crime if you are capable of being selective about it is there (such as selectively defacing the offending site)?
    Maybe this falls into some legal grey area I'm not aware of (incidentally I'm from the UK so my legal system and your legal system may be different).

  97. False advertising is a crime by tepples · · Score: 1

    So, basically, any advertisement (which "makes" customers buy goods, which may, or may not, have the advertised qualities...) is fraud?

    You've come rawther close to describing criminal false advertising.

  98. Maybe, its your fault. If you complain it works. by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 1

    When people get an email from a site like this they should complain to the ISP and datacenter hosting the site. The reason is that most will take swift action against phishers. The ISPs and datacenters I have dealt with usually take action within 24 hours. (That's a pretty fast response--they usually have the site suspended far before the 24 hours). And most send copies of the site including logs to the police.

    Don't just take the the thought that someone else will report them. Try it some day.

    Now, that being said, if you ever run across an ISP which doesn't care, well let's just say they probably deserve it.

    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
  99. For a Fistful of DRAM... by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)

  100. The power of jury by samjam · · Score: 1

    In England in the 18th century many juries found blatantly guilty people "Not guilty" of sheep-stealing because the penatly (death or transportation to Australia) was too severe given the circumstances.

    This is an important principle which recognizes the sovereignty of citizens as being supreme at least in some instances.

    Sam

    1. Re:The power of jury by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      Eep. I shudder when thinking about what they were doing to those poor, stolen sheep to justify death!

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

  101. Re:Old west? by Soybean47 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "vigilance"

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  102. Why arent the police doing this? by Sindri · · Score: 1

    Shooting and killing and criminal cought in the act of shooting someone else is generally illegal (in civilized countries at least). However police get an exception from this rule, and are in fact expected to do it.

    Hacking and taking down websites with crimminal intent is something the police should be allowed (and even required) to do.

    1. Re:Why arent the police doing this? by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

      Actually, your first point would depend on where it happened and if the person shooting the criminal was possessed the gun legally.

      If you walk into my house and are trying to kill someone with a gun, knife, etc. I have a legally justified right to stop you, even if it means shooting you.

      Finally, the reason the police can't do what you describe is a little issue with something called "due process."

      The police officer has to go through the courts to do anything like what you describe.

      Yes, they go after phishers. But they do it with search warrants, etc. If the site is hosted outside of their jurisdiction, there's little they can do, other than request help from law enforcement in that locality.

      --
      - dj
    2. Re:Why arent the police doing this? by yipper · · Score: 1


      In most states of the US self defense is not illegal. Self defense in some cases will extend to my loved-ones and my property.

      There is some controversy about having citizens armed and able to intervene in crimes. In my state to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon requires a short test on what situations are appropriate for citizen intervention.

      In those areas where "law enforcement" is not available (like frontier towns and on the Internet), the job falls to the citizens to keep criminal activity under control. That is a feature of citizen-led government. If the government can't do it, the citizens can (and should).

    3. Re:Why arent the police doing this? by Sindri · · Score: 1

      My point obviously got quite obscured by the metaphor.

      The point was:
      Like what happened in the Wild West, properly appointed lawmen should take over what the vigilantes are doing and do it properly (with due process of course).

  103. Justice!! by milimetric · · Score: 1

    Awesome!! If you're reading this, congratulations, now just kill the spammers and we'll give you honors Star Wars IV style.

  104. Vigilantes by NewStarRising · · Score: 1

    Stories of vigilante 'justice' remind me of a story in the UK where the media whipped up a storm about peadeophiles. Several people on the sex-offender register were hounded out of their homes and some assaulted. You may call this justice.
    When the ringleader of one mob saw that a local woman was a peadeotrician, they stopped reading after the first few letters and she was attacked.
    Vigilantes are all good and well when they get it right, but when they get it wrong they are just a lynch mob.

    --
    b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3!
    MadDwarf
  105. Yeah... by kikta · · Score: 4, Funny
    Inflammatory and extremist talk is not tolerated silently.
    ...it is duly modded up. ;-)
  106. Glorifying these Bandits by tezza · · Score: 1

    For a Few Paypal Donations More
    The Good, the Bad and the iPod
    Revenge of the Big Endian Chiefs [The Battle of Little Big Architecture]

    --
    [% slash_sig_val.text %]
  107. use the old definition of "outlaw" by HTL2001 · · Score: 1

    ... which literaly means outside the law, so if someone killed an 'outlaw' they would not be punished because the law doesnt protect the outlaws

    --
    By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
  108. Re:Old west? by Lillesvin · · Score: 1, Informative

    Hmm, actually, when I wrote it I wasn't entirely sure of it myself, but after looking it up in my good old Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary I'm a bit more sure (not entirely sure still).

    It says: vigi-lance n watchfulness; keeping watch; exercise ~. ~ committee (chiefly US) self-appointed group of persons who maintain order in a community where organization is imperfect of has broken down.

    So perhaps: s/kind of vigilance/way of excercising vigilance/g

    Btw, I'm not a native speaker - as you might have guessed. Though, I still think most people understood what I tried to say. Hopefully... :)

    --
    "Live free or don't."
  109. Artists Against 419 (was: justice) by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    A different, somewhat less problematic approach has been used by Artists Against 419 They link to images from 419 web sites to slurp their bandwidth which often shuts them down for a while when they exceed bandwidth limitations imposed by their hosting provider.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  110. Thank the Queen for the proper by mikeytwice · · Score: 1

    "...on the website SecurityFocus by the purported "white-hat" British hacker group called The Lad Wrecking Crew." I blame names like 'The Lad Wrecking Crew" on the royalty, m'self.

  111. Show Of Hands? by VxJasonxV · · Score: 1

    Show of hands, how many people think that these 'doers of good' are still going to be prosecuted?

    Ok, now put your arms down, it's starting to smell in here :P.

    In all seriousness, the phishers compromise someone's account and lay their data, then these 'vigilantes' come along and nuke it away, essentially making the unfortunate victim even worse off.

  112. kindergarden tactics by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Why romantanticize the exploits of people with the emotional age around five years?

  113. Re:Old west? by PHP+Addict · · Score: 1

    Chill. It was a joke, an obscure reference and nothing more. I got it, and I'm sure a lot of other people do too. In fact, the first person to respond to this with the allusion source wins...

    --
    Laziness, check. Impatience, check. Hubris, double check!
  114. it takes 10 minutes by swatthatfly · · Score: 1

    to reupload the scam to a different fake url and start over. How long does it take to hack the site? I don't think this kind of "war" is sustainable given the level of automation in web design+spam today.

    --
    keyboard not found! press any key to continue...
  115. The whole server should be taken out by mangu · · Score: 1
    A lot of these sites are hosted on hijacked and otherwise innocent boxes


    If you do not take precautions against your server being hijacked, you are guilty by omission. Taking down an insecure server is the morally right attitude, if it's likely that the same server will be hijacked again. If a sysadmin has an insecure server, he will probably do nothing to secure it if the only consequence is some phisher's site being defaced. But if the entire server is taken down, then probably the administrator will take some precautions to secure the server in a safer way.


    A physical world analogy is if you see a car parked in the street with the keys in the ignition and no one near. The right thing to do would be to remove the keys and deliver them to the police. By doing this you may be preventing the rightful owner to use his car, but you are also preventing children from taking the car and doing harm to innocent people.

    1. Re:The whole server should be taken out by SComps · · Score: 1

      until a police officer sees you taking the keys out of a car and charges you with theft.

      "Officer I was going to take these keys to the police station" probably won't be seen as honesty in many instances.

    2. Re:The whole server should be taken out by coopex · · Score: 1

      I think a better analogy would be to lock the keys in the car, or throw them in the trash, thereby making the person less likely to leave the keys in the ignition in the future, hopefully.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  116. not useless! by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    Think if there was a distributed tool where people could submit sites and have a ton of clients spew bad data. it would take a good bit of oversight to make sure this power was only used for good, but it stands a great chance at putting a hurt on spammers/scammers. brilliant!

    1. Re:not useless! by screeble · · Score: 1

      This is sort of similar to the concept of spam vampire...

      http://www.hillscapital.com/antispam/

    2. Re:not useless! by Spydr · · Score: 1

      it's a fun idea, but the problem comes when you piss off a little script kiddy and they use this tool to come after your site that they say is a spam site when it's really not.

      who decides what is spam and what's legit?

    3. Re:not useless! by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      slashdot effect? once a site hits +5 spam, start the denial of service.

      To Slashdot, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems!

  117. Lynching? Tar & Feathering? by richyoung · · Score: 1
    No, it's worse than that: they're defacing websites.

    Have they no pity? Who will stop these vigilantes?

    --
    6. Audible Alarm (not shown)
    -from a Cuisinart product owner's manual.
  118. GPL Revenge Script by gnurob · · Score: 1

    Hey cool. I've been doing that myself for the past year with a Perl script designed to repeatedly stuff forms with junk. Every time someone goes phishing in my mailbox they'll net a catch of old boots and rubber tires. I'd like to think that the script serves up enough junk data that they'll have a hard time finding people that did fall for their bait.

  119. It's the comedy by DragonMageWTF · · Score: 1

    Any halfway intelligent phisher It's the comedy that keeps me coming back to /.

  120. money trail by Dog135 · · Score: 1

    Just follow the money trail, right?

    The problem is:
    You can use stolen credit cards to pay for servers.
    You can use public hot spots to access your servers.
    You can use fake IDs to open bank accounts to transfer the money to. When you withdrawn the money, do it at a different branch so no one's waiting for you.

    Easier then robbing a bank.

    --
    "That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
  121. microsoft release IE toolbar in SP? by seanismdotcom · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't microsoft release a toolbar or even just a little box on IE that works like there antispyware. People can submit sites for review that they believe are phishing and if a normal user using IE comes upon it it will blink red and say SITE IS MOST LIKELY A SCAM SITE or something like that. If microsoft has this on by default then wouldn't that help stop most cases of this?

  122. now for the open source approach to it by TLouden · · Score: 1

    we should be seening bounties on fraudulent parties which can be collected by those that successfully take them out be what ever means. This way government regulations should get in the way and hacking skills can be used for profit, how nice would that be.

    --
    -Tim Louden
  123. It's much easier and legal to just... by D_Lehman(at)ISPAN.or · · Score: 1

    Didn't RTFA, but I don't support any form of vigilante justice. The simple reason? They're wasting valuable time. While they're playing games hacking into a sever to post "Haha, I rooted a scam site," they could have just coded some simple firewall rules that anybody could use, and simply publish a list of scam ips and domains on a daily/hourly basis. If they want to help, code something to prevent such sites from showing up at all, like introducing software to recognize pages that are asking for personal information, and rejecting their loading if they aren't already in the user's pre-approved list of legit sites.

    Problem solved... legally. It's already done for spam blocking, though noticibly slower. Spyware tools already have the simple functionality to use modified Windows host files.

    Fact is, whoever is doing this, they just wanted press, and to be "l33t", and get some type of hero status, which Slashdot happily gave them. What they aren't doing is making any difference. Those scam sites were most likely already hacked to begin with, and the perp is just moving from one to another daily.

    Self regulation isn't about playing cowboys and indians on the net. It's about empowering other individuals with tools so they can regulate their own experience, not so you can regulate it indiscriminantly for them by attacking others.

    Vigilantes are not solutions. Not only do they answer to no one, but if they are the solution, what happens when they get bored hacking scam sites? Obviously those making money will have far more patiences than them. It's just a matter of time, unless an effort and solution is really organized legitimately, so that it becomes perpetual.

    --
    Cleaning the net one sed at a time! s/sex/sermons/; s/hot/holy/; s/goats/thebible/; www.holysermonswiththebible.com
  124. I'm in the bandaid business, you insensitive clod by spun · · Score: 1

    Seriously, the bandaid fix is a large part of what is wrong with the world. Too many people getting rich off of temporary fixes that keep them in business rather than permanent solutions that put them out of business by actually solving the problem.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  125. Re:Old west? by dgatwood · · Score: 1
    Princess Bride. Not obscure at all. One of my favorite movies. It's even somewhat on topic, since essentially that entire movie was about vigilantes trying to save the girl from her corrupt prince.

    But to drive this thread back to the topic at hand... who wants to bet the only reason they're doing this is that they have the urge to crack servers and figure that scammers aren't likely to sue them?

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  126. Re:Old west? by iamacat · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why is it a "thin line". If you see someone getting mugged, you have the physical strength and there is no police around, why shouldn't you intervene?

    Those sites are stealing more money from each person than someone taking your wallet on the street and can keep misusing one's identity for many years afterwards. They often reside in jurisdiction where police would rather combat massive real-world violence than bother with some web sites (as well they should!). If you have the skills, you should go and wipe out then next phishing link that shows up in your inbox.

    A thin line would be DDoSing Gator. As much as it's tempting to beat up the bastards trying to sell a 100 magazine subscriptions to an old lady who dreams of winning some sweapstakes...

  127. Mod parent informative please by idonthack · · Score: 1

    He's an AC so most people won't see it.

    --
    Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
  128. I have super powers! by dlZ · · Score: 1

    I have a lot of super powers! I can talk endlessly about computers, putting even the most vile criminal asleep. I have the ability to repel women! And my most super power is that of the ability to thrive without sunlight or real food (just chips and soda) for months!

    --
    rm -rf ./evidence @ punkcomp
  129. MOD PARENT UP! by idonthack · · Score: 1

    It's awesome.

    --
    Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
  130. Re:Old west? by coopex · · Score: 1

    I assumed CowyboyNeal referred to Neal Cassady, the driver of Ken Kesey's bus Further as chronicled in "An Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test", and the real life Dean Moriarty from Kerouac's "On the Road". Linky: Neal Cassady

    --
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  131. MOD PARENT UP! by coopex · · Score: 1

    Insightful Informative Flamebait Troll Funny

    --
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  132. Re:Old west? by Lillesvin · · Score: 1

    That's what I mean... As I said, to some extent I think it's alright they do this (the cracking of the scammers). My concern is that the trend spreads and someone crosses the thin line between good and bad vigilante-hood? ( E.g.: Will some RIAA/MPAA-fanboys start hammering down http://thepiratebay.org/ because what they (TPB) are doing is illegal where the crackers come from? (And no, this is NOT a discussion on whether or not sharing .torrents is legal/illegal, good/bad or anything like that - it's JUST an example.)

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for seeing those scammers get some of what they deserve - I'm merely a bit afraid that the trend will catch on to other areas that some of us actually care about. (Yeah, I'm an insensitive clod - I don't give a hoot about scammers.) ;-p

    --
    "Live free or don't."
  133. one more for the list by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    you can add "Any post critical of mainstream evolutionary theory" to that list...

    I'm not a creationist, but in a recent /. post I had the primative audacity to call into question the report that miniature skeletal remains found in a cave were pre-human homonids. I thought they might be midgets or something.

    I was flamed like I was jerry falwell for being a 'creationist', modded up at first, then modded way down as a flamer...

    what's the deal /.? I didn't even mention creation/evolution debate, I just questioned facts. It seems sometimes there ISN'T room for any kind of dissenting opinion.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  134. There's a followup. by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

    Link.

    <BChikapa> Holy shit. Calisa, are you watching this thing on Fox
    <Calisa> no.
    <BChikapa> This guy was in a boat, and a swordfish JUMPED OUT OF THE WATER AND STABBED HIM IN THE FACE.
    <Calisa> [SA]HatfulOfHollow finally got them.
    <BChikapa> I don't know if it's sadder that you made that joke, or that I got it.

  135. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  136. Re:Maybe, its your fault. If you complain it works by SysGoddess · · Score: 1
    "The ISPs and datacenters I have dealt with usually take action within 24 hours."

    True, when they're within U.S., U.K. or Canadian borders but I'm encountering more and more outside same and finding the sites up long after I've pinged them and discovered that the entire site and apparent 'host' is nothing more than one big phishing hole. Some of the URLs might change slightly but they were all going back to the same motherships albeit with different info.

    Complaining to their upstream providers, or APNIC (for example) is like spitting into the wind.

    --

    Thus spake the SysGoddess
  137. Re:LETS program info? by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    LETS == Local Exchange Trading Scheme. Basically a group of people, all with useful skills and assets, who come together and perform work for one another in exchange for favours. No hard currency changes hands. A committee is usually required when you have more than about 20 members, to keep track of who did what and decide what is worth how much.

    Check up on http://www.lets-linkup.com/. Note, every group will be different.

    The WINE project is an utter red herring IMHO and may even prove to be damaging in the long term -- like those textured soya protein burgers that only serve to legitimise meat eating. Or like methadone {keeps you from wanting gear at first ..... but when some brown inevitably comes your way, you aren't going to refuse just because you've already had your Green Gloop, and you just crank up the severity of your habit}. Why teach a cat to bark, when you can learn to appreciate meows instead? I recently shew a computer-illiterate friend how to use KWord, Gaim &c. She has since tried Windows and doesn't think it is any easier .....

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  138. bartering & Wine project both hurt m$ by Halvy · · Score: 1

    thanx for the info on bartering!

    as far as the wine project, well if you think about it alittle further, the more wine is able to handle *ALL* programs written specifically for m$ (which from my understanding, they are getting MIGHHHHHTY close), the less people will *have* to buy m$.. which means.. m$ eventually goes outa business!! :)

    --
    I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..