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."

25 of 621 comments (clear)

  1. May or may not be the same Anons by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  2. Smear campaign by Scientology by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    count on it.

    1. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by dosius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some Anons say there is but one Anon.

      I express solidarity with the Anons who fight the CoS, but I refuse to accept the Internet Hate Machine as being the same Anonymous. It is why I said before and I say again: There are TWO Anonymous.

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    2. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by ins0m · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You bet. This sounds exactly like a false-flag attack to discredit Anonymous. They have already struck back once after Anonymous sandbagged their servers with DDoS and Gigaloader attacks. Co$ has been twisted up since the 2/10 and 3/15 peaceful demonstrations. Now that the /i/nsurgents are under the tutelage of Gregg Hagglund, Tory Christman, and Mark Bunker, it's only going to be a matter of time before OSA kicks it into high gear to start tracking these kids down.

      This is just a salvo of an upcoming battle, the likes of which Co$ hasn't ever seen before. So long as Anonymous can remain decentralized and have more than one forum to communicate, this could be interesting to see play out.

      --
      Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
    3. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or could it be that, due to the original anonymous group against scientology being well, anonymous, they are easy to impersonate...
      Thus, the second anonymous group attacking epileptics is actually compose of members of the church of scientology seeking to discredit the original anonymous group?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This was largely my thought, how exactly do we know that these are actually people that are affiliated with that movement, and not just Scientologists looking to smear their adversary.

      Or equally likely a random collection of griefers that hit on the idea of doing a threefer.

      The "evidence" that they've cited at the end is extremely tenuous. It could be related to the Anonymous effort to end Scientology, some Scientologists themselves or just a random assortment of people looking to cause as much trouble as possible.

      The thing that I kind of have to wonder about is why people with epilepsy would be cruising the net without pop up, javascript and gif blockers on. Even if there weren't an attack of this sort, there are plenty of sites on the net with animations and such which could very easily trigger these sorts of symptoms.

    5. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent up- Fact is that "anonymous" means nobody knows who did it. So blaiming the people who are attacking scientology for an anonymous attack is the same as blaiming every crime whose perpetrator is unknown on the group protesting scientology.

      It seems the only ones looking to benefit from making this connection would be the church of scientology itself, and this "article" just helps the scientology propaganda.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    6. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by popmaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All this might mean however, that people make the connection between "anonymous", the group that protests scientology, and "anonymous", the internet assholes that cause epileptic seizures. People might not stop to think about all this "no-organization-no-values" ideology and simply make the mental connection that "Anonymous" is just like any other group of people, and they just might now make the conclusion that they are BAD. Thus the whole anti-scientology effort is undermined. Because if a group of assholes protests something - do we have any idea if what they were protesting was bad or not?

      It's the message that gets compromised, not the group, which - like you said - isn't really a group anyway.

    7. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by aurispector · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we can all agree that this incident is utterly and completely reprehensible. It's one thing for griefers to screw around with overly serious gamers or troll/flame discussion boards - no real harm done at the end of the day. To deliberately attempt to induce a seizure may be a criminal act.

      Considering recent events it does not seem likely that "Anonymous" would do it - their campaign is meant to expose CoS's alleged misdeeds; an altruistic motive. Blaming "Anonymous" doesn't make sense in this context.

      In these days of never ending spin and propaganda, the *first* thing to do when analyzing an event like this is to look carefully at who's ends are served by the fallout. The most likely culprits are either 1)some random asshole or 2)CoS. Of the two, who's ends are best served by this event?

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    8. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by K8Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Smear campaign by Scientology...count on it.

      Agreed. Anyone who doubts that they are capable of doing this needs to read about "Operation Freakout" a campaign to destroy the career and mental health of journalist Paulette Cooper. Scientology's goons stole her stationary and sent bomb threats. She was only cleared after voluntarily submitting to questioning by the FBI under sodium pentothal.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    9. Re:Smear campaign by Scientology by LrdDimwit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not a juvenile prank. This isn't anything close to a juvenile prank, the same way swatting isn't. A juvenile prank would have been subliminal flashing penises, not iterative deployment of effects specifically designed to be highly effective against many types of epilepsy. Thousands of people were affected, it was an ongoing attack that received several refinements to make it more effective, so it wasn't spur-of-the-moment either.

      Someone not only came up with the idea of forcing people to have epileptic fits, but was evil enough to follow through with it. This is a serious disease, with serious detrimental effects, and it was perpetrated in a way designed to maximize exposure.

      The perps need to be found, and need to be prosecuted. Bury them with one seperate count of (at the least) assault for every person who says they suffered epileptic attacks. If law enforcement can't nail these guys, then they may as well throw in the towel, because it means they lost. The bad guys win.

  3. Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I am no supporter of Anonymous, but isn't it convenient for the Scientologers that their new-found enemy should suddenly be suspected of a such certoonishly evil assault.

    Two particular L. Ron Hubbard quotes are especially instructive in this regard-

    We are slowly and carefully teaching the unholy a lesson. It is as follows: We are not a law enforcement agency. BUT we will become interested in the crimes of people who seek to stop us. If you oppose Scientology we promptly look up - and find and expose - your crimes. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone.
    And-

    Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown.
    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"
    1. Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas? by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anonymous has been romanticized as a morally driven vigilante group. This, and the fact that you're posting as an AC made me wonder if you're a cult member.

      Anonymous taking on Scientology is more akin to [...] spray painting a swastika on a Jewish community center. This made me sure of it.

      It isn't. I have followed various /b/ and /i/ boards for a long time. This is a clear debunking of the rationale present in this post.

      If you know anything about the cult, you know about "Fair Game".

      Considering the amount of AC posts here (like yours) that are pro-cult, it's pretty obvious that this is a *VERY* lame attempt at framing their detractors.
  4. Of course by PakProtector · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!?"

  5. Sickening by wwwgregcom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Sickening by taustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given how trivial it was to conduct this attack, I have say that this forum didn't "used to be" a safe haven, it only seemed to be. Now, you have a clearer understanding of how the world really works.

  6. Re:Assholes by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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..."
  7. Riiight... by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Riiight... by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I was just pointing out that Anonymous has no motive for an attack on epileptics while Scientology has every reason to want to discredit Anonymous and this smacks of Scientology's usual modus operandi. I don't believe I made any statement about my views on either side, other than that I'm not particularly pro-Scientology, but what the hell... For the record I think that the upper echelons of Scientology are a bunch of deceitful scumbags whose sole purpose in the organisation is to manipulate the more gullible members of the organisation into giving them large sums of cash and will do pretty much anything to keep that gravy train flowing. Typical cult in other words.

      Anonymous, on the otherhand, I think has a worthwhile agenda in showing the public at large just what they can expect should they ever be tempted to join, or coerced into joining, Scientology. I do however have a problem with *their* operational methods though - not the peaceful protests, which are harmless to everyone and everything except Scientology's recruitment drive and gravy train, but their more militant activities like launching a series of DDoS attacks against Scientology. That does indeed smack of them consisting, at least in part, of a bunch of 13-year old script kiddies with no life that are perfectly capable of smearing themselves.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  8. I was wondering when this would happen by mlwmohawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. This is indirectly a good thing... by JustShootMe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now? by nevali · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Maybe... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    boards for epileptic support shouldn't be written with javascript and image upload ability in the first place? Just a thought.

    I almost bitchslapped you down as Overrated but decided to reply instead. Those boards are using standard PHP BBS packages off the shelf. They're already pretty buggy; on the EFA you keep getting immediately logged out, you keep losing posts, etc. Surprisingly epileptics don't tend to be experts at putting together crackerjack bulletin boards secure from unconventional cyberattacks that nobody anticipates, like asshats uploading strobe light movies. I guess they have to shut down their mailing lists, too, in case a Scientologist uploads an attachment.

    Most of the seizure-induced hallucinations I get while staring at a computer screen happen when I'm using Eclipse. Blocks of code start disappearing into blind spots or they fly across the screen but somehow remain at their home positions. It's actually kind of annoying because I know I have 20 minutes to check the shit in. Although it's visually-related epilepsy, it doesn't seem to be photosensitive so a trick like this probably wouldn't work. It's more shocking and insulting than anything. But one thing I will say about epilepsy is that you have to put up with a surprising amount of shit from people.

  12. Re:Stop lying, Christ. by Lehk228 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  13. Close but no cigar by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Akin to the nigger race maybe..

    More akin to the racist brand of Anonymous Coward.