Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Two Europeans Indicted In US For 2003 DDOS Attacks

Posted by timothy on from the how-about-some-shrimp-echouafni dept.

narramissic writes "In a continuation of the first successful U.S. investigation ever into DDOS attacks, Axel Gembe, 25, of Germany and Lee Graham Walker, 24, of England were indicted Thursday by a grand jury in Los Angeles, California, on one count of conspiracy and one count of intentionally damaging a computer system. The two men were allegedly hired by Jay R. Echouafni, owner of Orbit Communication, a Massachusetts-based company that sold home satellite systems, to carry out DDOS attacks against two of Orbit's competitors."

12 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Criminal Minds by mfh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It takes a genius to hire a couple of people to do your dirty work. It takes even greater genius to accept money to damage computer systems, from a complete stranger who would never rat you out.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Criminal Minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Might want to learn to read English, bud. The man who hired them was primarily being investigated, that lead to the 'foreigners'. Those darn Americans!

    2. Re:Criminal Minds by Ash+Vince · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why has this been modded flamebait? it seems like a valid point to me and also to most legal systems (including the US). The person who commissioned a crime to be committed is surely just as guilty as the people who committed it?

      All three of them should be tried together and face the same penalty.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  2. Re:Tax Dollars by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a criminal investigation. If Company A vandalizes Company B, do you expect Company B to "bring their own evidence to court"?

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  3. sigh by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and all they had to do was post a made-up "home satellite" article to slashdot.

  4. Extradition from the UK to US by MattLees · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Based on the UK Govs attitude to bending over whenever the US Gov requests someone to be extradited I wouldn't want to be in Lee Graham Walker's shoes right now.

    1. Re:Extradition from the UK to US by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plus you can hardly blame them for honoring a treaty and all.

      Watch me.
      We should never have signed up to such a wide-ranging treaty (a fact which has become abundantly clear recently) - I expect our government to frustrate the process of complying with the treaty as much as possible whilst simultaneously working to get out of it.

      I don't have the data, but I suspect they extradite people to France as well.

      The French justice system is a damn-sight more civilised than the US one.

      --
      FGD 135
    2. Re:Extradition from the UK to US by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what's your experience with the US and French judicial systems? I'm interested in hearing your first-hand account of your experiences dealing with both.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  5. The interesting part by bendodge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I think it's a good thing that international cyber-vandalism (or whatever you want to call it) is being investigated in regular courts (instead of some super-world thingy), I think the most interesting part is the charges against Lee Graham Walker. According to the article, his crime was using IRC to chat with Gembe about the botnet's code. Now, I'm not a legal expert or even legal savvy, but that sounds like a charge that would easily apply to a lot of geeks who IM with geeks short on ethics. I don't think it's being misused in this case, but it does sound like a pretty wide net.

    --
    The government can't save you.
    1. Re:The interesting part by Penguinoflight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's quite clearly misuse. Any IRC recording by the investigation entitiy would result in inadmissable evidence, at least under the US constitution. Since the "criminals" (as everyone likes calling them) are not US citizens, they aren't covered by the constitution.

      More importantly, a botnet could be used for any number of things. Depending on the actual conversation, Gembe may not have revealed his use, or lied saying it was to test a network he administered.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    2. Re:The interesting part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because the defendants are not US citizens does not mean that Constitutional protections don't apply. The Constitution does not talk about the rights of citizens, but the rights of people. If US law is going to be applied to someone, then the entirety of US law, including the Constitution and its Supremacy Clause, apply.

      So you are wrong. They are covered by the Constitution.

  6. Re:Revoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's Massachusetts. The penalty for running over and killing someone while driving drunk is to become a state senator. The penalty for severe security lapses that allow terrorists to kill 3000 people is - well, nothing.

    Besides, given that they think that blinking cartoon characters made out of LEDs are bombs, I doubt anyone in power in that state is smart enough to understand what a DDOS attack is. Even MIT's management decided LEDs were bombs when the state police almost shot one of their students for wearing a shirt with LEDs on it.