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.
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.
that's why my citibank fansite was defaced!
If it's common sense, regardless of the law, the people (in the form of a jury) can make it legal.
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?
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!
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.
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)
#!/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);
}
}
Parent post is clearly a fake, it claims the code is Perl, but I could read and understand all of it.
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.
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