Slashdot Mirror
Griefers Assault Epileptics Via Message Board
An anonymous reader tips us to a story up at Wired reporting on what may be the first computer attack to inflict physical harm on victims. Last Saturday, griefers posted hundreds of bogus messages on the support forums of the nonprofit Epilepsy Foundation that used JavaScript and strobing GIFs to trigger migraines and seizures in users. For about 3% of the 50 million epileptics worldwide, flashing lights and colors can trigger seizures. "'I don't fall over and convulse, but it hurts,' says [an IT worker in Ohio]. 'I was on the phone when it happened, and I couldn't move and couldn't speak.' ... Circumstantial evidence suggests the attack was the work of members of Anonymous, an informal collective of griefers best known for their recent war on the Church of Scientology. The first flurry of posts on the epilepsy forum referenced the site EBaumsWorld, which is much hated by Anonymous. And forum members claim they found a message board thread — since deleted — planning the attack at 7chan.org, a group stronghold."
The members of Anonymous that did these hacks, if, in fact, that is who planned them, are likely not the same people protesting the Scientology organization.
One of the things about Anonymous that makes it different than most groups is that there are no real leaders and that, due to its very nature, nobody really knows anyone else in the group short of a few people that they might know outside the anonymous forums (this is because on a lot of the boards that Anon originated on, posters are forced to post anonymously, hence the name).
So it's really impossible to tell whether the people doing this are the same ones behind the masks at the protests.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I admit I usually think it is funny and appropriately rebellious when hackers set out to make a point. When they picked on the Scientologists it was funny. But this? Why this? It's like torturing your goldfish. Where is the challenge? What's the point?
Careful What You Wish For....
count on it.
Two particular L. Ron Hubbard quotes are especially instructive in this regard- And- Certainly makes you wonder...
Also, Epileptics need to build themselves a Firefox plugin that'll detect any harmful behaviour, and block it Adblock-style. As the tech progresses this plugin could even be integrated into special sunglasses....
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
Obviously 'Anonymous' did this, because the Church of Scientology is so moral as to never stoop to breaking the law and framing others to remove a detractor.
Just how they would never try to drive a critic to suicide or cause the death of one of their own due to denial of basic medical treatment.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
As an epileptic, I find this absolutely sickening. Although I have a very mild form that is not photosensitive, this is a terrible act. For some, seizures do have a small risk of sudden death. When I was first diagnosed, I found these and similar message boards to be an absolutely invaluable resource in finding comfort and support for what is an often incurable and sometimes still stigmatized disease. For me, these forums will never feel like the same safe haven that they used to be.
What signature defines me as a person?
boards for epileptic support shouldn't be written with javascript and image upload ability in the first place? Just a thought. I don't recall ever having strobing marching penises coming out of the monitor at me when I read usenet all those years...
And so, the Scientology strategy of blaming their detractors through a blackbag job worked. They got you to believe this was by Anonymous.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
And I am supposed to believe that this is Anonymous branching out from their protest against Scientology, and not some asshat member of Scientology trying to give Anonymous a bad name because...?
Anonymous has a beef with Scientology, and that is the sole extent of their agenda to date, so there is absolutely no reason for them to suddenly decide to launch an attack against epileptics. On the other hand there is every reason for Scientology to try and smear Anonymous in order to gain a more sympathetic ear in any future court actions against Anonymous. Given the track record Scientology has with the use of smear campaigns against people and organisations that try to stand up to them, I'd say it's pretty obvious what's really going on here.
Oh, and expect incoming pro-Scientology astroturfers in 3... 2... 1...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I have a relative in the Fire Alarm business and he tells me about the restrictions on strobe lights on long corridors, they have to flash simultaneously because the random flashes could cause a seizure during a fire. I thought, "wow, that's right. I wonder if they actualy thought about it before hand, or if they wrote the regulation based on a real incident."
Anyway, having that on my mind, I was looking at some of the more garish web sites and thought to myself, "I wonder if someone would construct a site that could trigger an epileptic seizure. Well, now we know.
As for "Anonymous" be the same anti-scientology "Anonymous," I would bet with 99% confidence that if there is such an accusation, it is scientology that did it. We know "why" anonymous is going after scientology, whether you agree or disagree, they have a cause. The epilepsy incident has nothing to do with that cause, and furthermore undermines it. It only makes sense that since it undermines the cause of "anonymous," it was likely done by scientology since they are the ones with the actual motive.
You sure accept they did it fast. But your not alone, and that's what scares me.
This is the 21 century, we shouldn't have mob justice or lynchings anymore.
Not the actual "attack" itself, of course. But immediately, someone mentioned "anonymous" and everyone knew who they were, that they had a beef with scientology, and that scientology was possibly behind it to discredit them.
This shows that scientology is losing the PR war. They are completely out of their league when they can't actually identify and personally harass their detractors.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
I was sorely tempted to post anonymously (not the flashing lights kind) when writing the post.
But bullies don't stop if you run away.
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
Er, how about this: people who run websites need to be competent at it.
Many forum software packages have the ability to selectively or globally disable the upload animated GIFs. Given that they're forums for suffers of epilepsy, you'd think it'd be fairly high up on the list given that photosensitivity is a well-known symptom.
Similarly, a sticky forum post on "How to avoid a seizure when browsing the web" would be helpful. Links to Firefox plug-ins, and the like.
I would tend to agree.
/i/nsurgents would resort to something like this. I've started to look through a few of the places where this sort of this is discussed (the few I know about), and I haven't found anything. I think I might even leave them a note about someone doing this in the name of Anon, and how this undermines their long-term goals.
I don't even think the hardcore
However, I would not completely rule out a rogue newfag or two who thinks this is funny.
The media never could grasp the correct usage of hackers (hackers versus crackers
Ok, that battle was lost literally 20 years ago, give it the hell up already. Seriously, you're only deluding yourself on this one.
hackers versus script kiddies
I've always assumed that script kiddies are a type of hacker who use only code/exploits written by other people instead of writing their own.
and confusing Anonymous for hackers isn't likely to help.
Yes, well, if they're going to be a group, maybe they should get a name that isn't completely moronic.
Comment of the year
I hate scientology as much as the next guy, but yes, this is the same Anonymous.
1. I saw this last week on 4chan, it was fucked up then, and is fucked up now.
2. Anonymous is not a group. It is not even an agenda. Anonymous is a way to rally for a cause, whatever that cause may be. I have been a part of many invasions, and if it is a cause I believe in, I will do more. Obviously I sat this one out.
3. Almost every anonymous invasion has the theme of "getting the word out". This is exactly in the MO of anonymous. In this case, I believe the message is that no one, not even a web forum designed to help the sick, should be ignorant of security. Anonymous was able to inject CSS to get the theme to flash random colors, and do various XSS attacks to redirect users to all sorts of malicious visuals. The epilepsy board also apparently had no sense of incident response. Some people are willing to hurt innocent people to make this point.
I think this attack also brings up an interesting point. For my day job, I do security testing for networked medical devices attempting to get HIPPA or iso13485 compliance. Should web based tools like this forum be forced to meet the same security standards? Just a thought.
you are the 4th or 5th person with a low post count asserting that Scientology could not possibly have done this and that they aren't afraid of anonymous.
a pattern emerges
the pattern says go back to clearwater
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
they are not the 'internet'.
they are morons.
do you really WANT to understand them?
OK, it sounds like "anonymous" is just a really poor spelling of "asshole".
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Akin to the nigger race maybe..
More akin to the racist brand of Anonymous Coward.
Agree with parent. The whole point of being anonymous is that people don't know who you are. Now, one or more persons might specifically take on the pseudonym "Anonymous" (capitalized), but then that would only be applicable within a very specific context, and certainly it would be silly to say, "But *I'm* the *real* Anonymous!" Imagine a conversation like this:
A: "Someone suggested that taxes be raised. I didn't know who it was."
B: "Really? Someone whom I didn't know had suggested that taxes be lowered. Boy, this person that we don't know sure has trouble making up his mind!"
(Yes, I know that "anonymi" is not the correct plural. Yes, I know that "anonymous" is not spelled "anonymus". If the plural of "mouse" is "mice", perhaps the plural of "anonymous" is "anonymic"?)
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Ooookay, anyone getting a "Ghost in the Shell - Stand Alone Complex" vibe from this whole thread? Seriously, if you were all in a virtual-reality chat room instead of /. this would be the Laughing Man discussion down to a T...
Meta will eat itself
Background: I'm not a WoW player or an FPS player. I generally don't play online games against other people, and I avoid forums set up in a way that encourages casual trolling. I got excellent scores on the verbal sections of the SAT and GRE :-)
I like the words "griefer" and "griefing" and would not hesitate to use them in conversation. They are not redundant with other words that are already in my vocabulary. I know other words like "jerk" and "asshole" and "sadist," but they're a bit different. "Sadist" is similar to "griefer," but even "sadist" describes a person's character more than his actions.
To me, "griefing" suggests something open, superficial, and habitual, while "sadism" suggests something profound that may be entirely hidden. A griefer might leave a broken bottle on an old man's back porch and laugh about it, but would probably feel sick if he saw an old man crying with glass stuck in his feet. A sadist wouldn't bother leaving the bottle if he couldn't watch.
Griefers wish they were sadists, but they aren't. Thus, they must take an industrial approach rather than a hedonistic one -- "How much pain have I caused?" instead of "How much pain have I enjoyed?" The internet is a perfect place for griefing, because you can gloat about a person's suffering without experiencing the empathic response that a real, live, suffering human being might provoke.