Slashdot Mirror


Hacker Admits To Scientology DDoS Attack

lbwbl writes with news that a New Jersey man will plead guilty to one felony count of 'unauthorized impairment of a protected computer' for his distributed denial of service attacks on Scientology websites as part of 'Anonymous' earlier this year. From Wired: "He faces a likely sentence of 12 to 18 months in prison based on stipulations in his plea agreement, which also obliges him to pay $37,500 in restitution. ... Friday's case, in US District Court in Los Angeles, marks the first prosecution of an Anonymous member for a series of attacks against the Church of Scientology that began in mid-January. The secretive religious group strayed into Anonymous' sights after trying to suppress the publication of a creepy Tom Cruise video produced for Scientology members."

275 comments

  1. scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by TheSovereign · · Score: 5, Funny

    against them. Its high time these scammers got whats coming. Its time for a new age of reason! inspiring eh?

    1. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by camperslo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Will someone help protect me against the free-trade exploit tool (DMCA takedown notice) that I'm told the church would use against me if/when I try to sell my E-meter on Ebay?

      The E-meter isn't a fake or an unauthorized copy.

    2. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember a chapter in a text for a health class in junior high school. The topic was "Quacks," and the direction was to "beware of them." I remember being interested in the first view of doctors I'd seen that didn't portray them as completely trustworthy and somehow authoritarian.

      One section described a particularly heinous form of quackery that involved "gizmos purported to measure the electrical charge on the surface of the skin." This seemed outrageous to me. Electricity on the skin??? Obviously this was a big-time scam. These gizmos were obviously fakes; I could tell just by reading the damning text and staring at the weird black and white photos.

      I thought about this from time to time as I grew up, especially when I learned about the vast array of electrical charges and how ubiquitous electricity is. I still held onto this strange form of pity for those who had fallen for the scams of these quacks and their bogus gizmos. Something about the tone of the textbook made the whole thing seem very dangerous, e.g., there were people spending all of their money on something that couldn't possibly work. And what if they had a serious ailment which was being ignored in favor of the, the ... quackery !!!

      Well, a few years ago, when the Scientology documents were exposed to the public, I perused them out of curiosity. Even though I knew about Xenu, I was still surprised to see it all there in print. Then I ran across the man's story of getting to some advanced Thetan level, and he described the self-auditing with the e-meter. Something in his narrative caused the neurons in my own brain to fire just so, and I realized that this was what was being described in the textbook.

      I think it would be interesting to research how detectable electrical currents in the human body relate to physical, mental, even emotional processes. I believe it's dangerous to toss around half-baked notions of the same, in exchange for money and time, based on the ramblings of a science fiction author on alcohol and barbiturates.

      I mean, the guy should have been on psilocybin, or mescaline. Alcohol and other depressants are cruel drugs.

      --
      "Press to test."
      (click)
      "Release to detonate."
    3. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by binarylarry · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hunter is that you?

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is happening. http://www.whyweprotest.net. DO IT NOW.

    5. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by camperslo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, a few years ago, when the Scientology documents were exposed to the public, I perused them out of curiosity. Even though I knew about Xenu, I was still surprised to see it all there in print. Then I ran across the man's story of getting to some advanced Thetan level, and he described the self-auditing with the e-meter. Something in his narrative caused the neurons in my own brain to fire just so, and I realized that this was what was being described in the textbook.

      I think it would be interesting to research how detectable electrical currents in the human body relate to physical, mental, even emotional processes.

      The E-meter isn't about anything as weird as trying to pick up signal currents in the body (at least not the model I have from about 30 years ago). It's just a resistance bridge, a device with a meter that can show small changes in resistance (inverse of conductivity). One puts a juice can in each hand and tensing of the grip and/or changes in perspiration cause a measurable shift as one responds to questions etc. It's basically doing just one of the things a so-called lie-detector does.

      I was never a member of the church. I guess I should dig out the various booklets that are with the E-meter to see just how they used it. It's probably helpful in telling if someone has been successfully brainwashed or is holding back during questioning LOL.

    6. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would be interesting to research how detectable electrical currents in the human body relate to physical, mental, even emotional processes.

      Acupuncture theories involve these sorts of studies. (although I don't think they usually include mental/emotional processes)

    7. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sample E-meter questioning:

      Holden: You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of the sudden-
      Leon: Is this the test now?
      Holden: Yes. You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down-
      Leon: What one?
      Holden: What?
      Leon: What desert?
      Holden: It doesn't make any difference what desert, it's completely hypothetical.
      Leon: But how come I'd be there?
      Holden: Maybe you're fed up, maybe you want to be by yourself, who knows? You look down and you see a tortoise, Leon, it's crawling toward you-
      Leon: Tortoise, what's that?
      Holden: Know what a turtle is?
      Leon: Of course.
      Holden: Same thing.
      Leon: I've never seen a turtle. (pause) But I understand what you mean.
      Holden: You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back Leon.
      Leon: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden, or do they write them down for you?
      Holden: The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun beating its legs trying to turn itself over but it can't, not without your help, but you're not helping.
      Leon: What do you mean I'm not helping?
      Holden: I mean, you're not helping. Why is that Leon? (pause) They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response. (pause) Shall we continue? Describe in single words, only the good things that come in to your mind about: your mother.
      Leon: My mother?
      Holden: Yeah.
      Leon: Let me tell you about my mother. (shot fired)

    8. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh they got what's coming to them... a $37,500 'donation' to further the cause.

    9. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Alien54 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Here are the patents and patent dates

      The major technical difference between the earlier models and later models is the introduction of the transistor vs the use of vacuum tubes.

      Patents by Mathison

      Patent number: 2684670
      Filing date: Aug 1, 1951
      http://www.google.com/patents?id=L7tDAAAAEBAJ

      Patent number: 2810383
      Filing date: Sep 1, 1954
      http://www.google.com/patents?id=mXVLAAAAEBAJ

      Patent number: 2799269
      Filing date: Feb 7, 1956
      http://www.google.com/patents?id=wxNbAAAAEBAJ

      Patents by Hubbard

      Patent number: 3290589
      Filing date: Jun 7, 1965
      http://www.google.com/patents?id=OVpxAAAAEBAJ&

      Patent number: D264877
      Filing date: Mar 8, 1979
      http://www.google.com/patents?id=pAMqAAAAEBAJ

      Patent number: 4459995
      Filing date: Sep 22, 1981
      http://www.google.com/patents?id=YYsxAAAAEBAJ

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    10. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by gary_7vn · · Score: 1

      The mechanism that teh scientologists use is called a Galvanic Skin Response reader. It simply measures the amount of sweat on your hands. The amount of sweat on your hands doesn't mean much. It could be a hot day, or you could be a little nervous (for any reason) or you could simply be John McCain. Back in the day they actually used these home made machines that used tin cans! GSR's are somewhat useful, they use them in lie detectors, but there is also a lot of evidence that lie detectors, which are infinitely more sophisticated than a simple GSR are pretty much useless themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_skin_response

    11. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Yea it measures skin conductance which is related to the amount of sweat (salt water) on your skin which is in turn related to the activity of your sympathetic nervous system (activated for "fight or flight" situations) which is itself related blood adrenaline levels (not positive about this last one) which are supposed to increase due to stress.

    12. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good deal. That Anonymous guy has been all over slashdot for years. He's a total racist.

    13. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      I think it would be interesting to research how detectable electrical currents in the human body relate to physical, mental, even emotional processes.

      That's well known. EEG is used to measure brain function and detect abnormalities and lie detectors work but are unreliable and their output depends on many physical/mental variables, not just lying. Myography measures the electrical function of muscles.
      After a neck injury, I had an interesting procedure done: My hands were given small electric shocks and the resulting brain action was measured with an EEG like cap. IIRC the signal delay was measured. Fortunately the nerves were just slightly affected and recovered.

    14. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't the frequently used lie detector test work on the same principles as the e-meter?

      Anonymous Coward

    15. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember: Anonymous still delivers. But you could lurk more.

    16. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea it measures skin conductance which is related to the amount of sweat (salt water) on your skin which is in turn related to the activity of your sympathetic nervous system (activated for "fight or flight" situations) which is itself related blood adrenaline levels (not positive about this last one) which are supposed to increase due to stress.

      No, it measures the conductance between the two juice cans, which is related to, among other things, skin conductance. More importantly, the conductance is related to the pressure with which you squeeze the cans.

    17. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Project2501a · · Score: 1

      Sir, I have seen stars explode off the belt of orion.

      and i wish i had mod points to give you

      --
      ----
    18. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't the frequently used lie detector test work on the same principles as the e-meter?

      Yes, but those generally do more showing things like pulse and respiration at the same time. Also, instead of driving a meter the output typically drives a chart recorder to log variation over time.

    19. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are retarded. The Scientology E-meters are just glorified Galvanic Skin Response readers. Galvanic Skin Response has been used in Psychology since the early 1900's. Electrical conductance across skin is real. Fucking moron.

    20. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what that was, you know.

      Half a year later and everyone's already forgotten all about it.

    21. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Will someone help protect me against the free-trade exploit tool (DMCA takedown notice) that I'm told the church would use against me if/when I try to sell my E-meter on Ebay?

      The E-meter isn't a fake or an unauthorized copy.

      That's probably not all they would use against you.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    22. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Afecks · · Score: 1

      He's not helping because he doesn't like turtles.

    23. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cruel/crude

    24. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMAO

      If only they were robots? Would explain so much.

    25. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, do you know how to use it? I bought one off ebay.

      I'm posting as AC because I'm afraid they will come knocking at my door, "We come for our E-meter... it belongs to us."

    26. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I quite like Scientology!! It's just as arbitrary as any other religion but somehow viewed as more ridiculous, hopefully this makes people examine their own arbitrary beliefs more closely.

    27. Re:scientology needs a worldwide campaign launched by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I think it would be interesting to research how detectable electrical currents in the human body relate to physical, mental, even emotional processes.

      Well, since human nervous system is electrical in nature, I'd say that they relate quite intimately :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  2. Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep no tears for him.

    But what counts as "Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer"?

    DRM that stops your OS or drives from working properly?

    --
    1. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by nightfire-unique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But what counts as "Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer"?

      DRM that stops your OS or drives from working properly?

      No, because DRM is installed by corporations, not a person.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    2. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Corporations are people too!

    3. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, because DRM is installed by corporations, not a person.

      Corporations are persons in the legal sense.

      The difference is customers voluntarily buy the DRM'd goods.
      It is pretty safe to say that the Scientologists didn't hire Anonymous as a tiger team.

    4. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what counts as "Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer"?

      DRM that stops your OS or drives from working properly?

      For it to count as "Unauthorized impairment" it has to be unauthorized. You authorize DRM.

    5. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Idiomatick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1~1.5 YEARS in prison for a relatively minor script kiddie DDOS? Thats way way WAY too harsh. He would have got less if he went their climbed up the pole and manually cut their connection. Thats WITH a plea. Totally not fair.

    6. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by nightfire-unique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporations are persons in the legal sense.

      No they aren't; corporations cannot vote and they have an unlimited lifespan. They cannot be jailed.

      The corporation is a legal entity to shield shareholders from some liability (both criminally and from civilly), and provide a common entity to direct. Nothing more.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    7. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      maybe corporate crimes should be prosecuted using the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act.

      people use corporations to protect themselves against legal liability in case they are sued or otherwise break the law. this is similar to how mafia bosses distance themselves from the criminal activities they profit from in an attempt to buffer themselves from potential legal repercussions.

      the military chain of command and other hierarchical organizations also have a similar effect of absolving personal responsibility. but when people are not held accountable for their own actions (including ordering unethical actions or authorizing criminal activities) this encourages corruption and has facilitated many injustices and atrocities in human history.

    8. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No you don't. You authorize whatever is advertised on the front of the box, the DRM slips its way in without you knowing.

    9. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Loualbano2 · · Score: 1

      It is a legal term from the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996.

      A protected computer is:

      (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
      (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States.

      Since it was a web server, it falls under the interstate or foreign commerce or communication definition.

      Definition lifted from here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Computer

      -ft

    10. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 4, Funny

      Soylent Green is corporations?

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    11. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by fedcb22 · · Score: 1

      It is pretty safe to say that the Scientologists didn't hire Anonymous as a tiger team.

      And I bought a game so that I could get DRM?

    12. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by sfraggle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Script kiddies are still script kiddies. I don't feel any sympathy for him just because it was Scientology he attacked. It's good to see that anonymous have put their initial tactics behind them (ie. attacking websites) in favor of organised protests instead. Global protests with hundreds of people holding placards is both more effective *and* lets them keep the moral highground.

      --
      were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
    13. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

      "No, because DRM is installed by corporations, not a person."

      I would also argue that DRM is "authorized" since you made the conscious choice to purchase and install it. As much as I hate DRM, if you didn't read the fine-print then that's your own fault.

      Of course if the media comes with absolutely no warning then maybe the parent is on to something ...

    14. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      For it to count as "Unauthorized impairment" it has to be unauthorized. You authorize DRM.

      Not if it's a Sony music CD!

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    15. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Threni · · Score: 1

      > As much as I hate DRM, if you didn't read the fine-print then that's your own fault.

      I don't agree. If the averagely sane/intelligent person wouldn't expect a piece of software to do something, then unless it's made crystal clear up front, and not hidden away in the small print, then it should be illegal/considered invalid. The expectation should be that bullshit is not allowed unless specifically allowed conciously. There's a reason why certain contract terms ("you will not work for a competitor") are not allowed in most rational parts of the world.

    16. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by jmickle · · Score: 3, Funny

      How is it not fair? What about bandwidth charges for the network? THe time that he took away from some engineer's life to get up at 2am to go and mitigate the attack? what about all the people who were affected simply by his attacks? Who cares about the website..... This should be a lesson for all the script kiddies out there. i think the sentence should be 5 years..... this guy is not a hacker... hes just another person who got a computer for christmas and learned some tricks.... now he thinks he is all so powerful and think hes the best developer in the world.....

    17. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Corporations = People = Soylent Green.

      Oh crap, we're stuck in a loop now.

    18. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by .orvp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Regardless of if it is a "minor script kiddie DDOS" or not, it was disruptive. Let's take out who the actual recipient of the DDOS was and put in another organization, such as Amnesty International, just for the sake of argument. Would it have been ok to DDOS Amnesty for whatever purpose? Remember, if you don't treat everyone the same (allowing for due processes and the court of law) you don't have justice.

      Now to take a look at the "script kiddie" aspect of the argument. Spammers are not that sophisticated, most of them do not actually write their own spamming software, they hire out for that and use pre-existing software, just as script kiddies do. So does that make it less of a problem than if they wrote the spamming software themselves? In my opinion, no it doesn't. Spammers, virus writers, and script kiddies all take time and resources away from citizens and corporations, which I see as a detriment to society. Now the best way to correct this, I am not sure, but I do not see a problem with locking up a script kiddie or spammer for 1-2 years, as I would really prefer to see more of them caught and sent to jail. This may not be a huge deterrent to many of them, but it would get more of them thinking about the consequences of their actions. What we do need though are laws that are enforced against these individuals.

      I know that some see a difference with spammers and script kiddies because the spammers are doing it for a profit. This is not a reason for kiddies not to be prosecuted though. Arsonists are not burning buildings and cars for a profit, they do it for shits and giggles, just like the script kiddie. Not having profit motivating aspects to a crime does not make it any less wrong.

      So I say, let him go to jail, good riddance. Yes it is my tax dollars at work, and yes we dis proportionally jail individuals longer for some crimes than others, but sometimes it is important to let individuals know just how much society disapproves of their actions.

      --
      My other sig is just as lame
    19. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Digital+End · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only difference between that and cutting the line would be the bandwidth costs, which would be countered by line repair costs.

      If you honestly believe a person deserves 1.5 years in prison for this you're damaged. It was some kid doing what amounts to vandalism. ANY amount of prison is overkill and more damaging to society then helpful. He should get probation at worst, a fine and community service.

      You honestly have no grasp of justice if a year and a half of your life is the price to pay for shutting down a website for a day. I'm guessing you're the kind who would put a highschool kid in jail for a year for taking a bat to a mailbox too eh?

      Punishment must fit the crime.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    20. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You know what, I don't like Microsoft any more than anybody else, and I'm totally in favor of imposing reasonable limitations on companies, but what you're saying just sounds like fear-mongering paranoia. We have to keep the discussion based in facts, otherwise it gets unreasonable.

      Think about it: the reason EA can get away with it is because anyone who installed it installed it by choice. They physically had to choose to install the software onto their machine. Now imagine that a single person individually created some software with some DRM in it, and distributed it. That single person would also be able to get away with it. It has nothing to do with being a corporation, and everything to do with DRM just sucking.

      --
      Qxe4
    21. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Teun · · Score: 1

      Well yes, they do contribute to the candidates election fund!

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    22. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by diefuchsjagden · · Score: 0

      DRM that stops your OS or drives from working properly?

      DRM is AUTHORIZED, when you consented to the Terms and Agreements of the software that installed the DRM you authorized the impairment of you computer, so no DRM does not count as "unauthorized impairment" just poor judgment

    23. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Suffrage isn't intrinsic to legal personhood. Many people have been and are denied the right to vote. If you're in the United States, then corporations are extended many constitutional protections that "persons" enjoy. If you're in a different country, it varies. Generally, corporations can own property, be party to contracts, initiate lawsuits, and are required to pay taxes. All of these are common to your garden-variety person (except women, children, or minorities in various places and times.)

      See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate.

    24. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by mpe · · Score: 3, Informative

      people use corporations to protect themselves against legal liability in case they are sued or otherwise break the law.

      Which wasn't the original idea behind a "Limited Liability Corporation" in the first place. That was that investors would have their financial liability limited to amount they had invested. Whilst they might end up with stock/share certificates which were effectivly worthless they would have no financial liability. Shareholders would be last on the list of creditors. Which whilst this might mean they would lose their money in the case of a failed business they could still get their money back (even make a profit) where one to cease trading whilst profitable.
      The idea that a corporation must exist for a long period of time, together with the idea of a corporation protecting its executives from their actions are more recent "innovations".

    25. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Teun · · Score: 1
      It sounds as if you are working for that scammer called Scientology.

      Please don't forget Scientology is just one of the best cloaks a Pyramid scheme has ever devised.
      The guy was on a Moral mission when he set off the Ddos and any idiot that needs to get out of bed to fix the problem gets what he deserves by working for the scammer.
      I work for a reputable company and get royally rewarded when on overtime. (I know, Europe, commies etc)

      Well, I hope you get my drift.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    26. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing more.

      They can own property and enter into contracts. They can lobby congress and create PACs. They can be fined. There certainly is more.

      I'm not sure of your point, but corporations certainly have most but not all of the same attributes as real persons. No they cannot marry and they cannot be president either, but they are effectively "super citizens" and the big ones have transcended their nationalities as well... these things are the most dangerous things to grace our planet and should be our biggest concern...

    27. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Teun · · Score: 1

      It is a legal term from the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996.

      Even though at that time you could have gotten a RH4.0 system what 'just worked'.
      OK, no good against a Ddos :)

      A protected computer is:

      (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce of the United States.

      Since it was a web server, it falls under the interstate or foreign commerce definition.

      Definition lifted from here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Computer

      -ft

      See, when I ommit all the drivel Scientology is all about being a commercial entity.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    28. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Requiem18th · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't be silly, corporations ain't no people, there are some minimal requirements like a heart and minimal morality.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    29. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by NovaHorizon · · Score: 1

      Yep no tears for him. But what counts as "Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer"? DRM that stops your OS or drives from working properly?

      Only if it's not somehow vaguely referenced in the EULA that you probably didn't read.

    30. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by horza · · Score: 1

      I don't think you get it. The people doing the organised protests instead aren't Anonymous but a bunch of bandwagon jumpers with maybe a few Anon mixed in. If it wasn't for the initial attacks then the protests would never have happened. This kid is just some fall guy who is going have his life trashed whilst the real culprits will get away scott free. Plus I *really* don't think you want Anon to determine your moral high-ground :-/

      Phillip.

    31. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'd also smash up the high school kids car (assuming he paid for it himself, and especially if it's a nice one) with a baseball bat. He can go back to riding the bus for a while, and maybe he'll figure out that breaking other people's property just isn't that amusing.

      Yes, because smashing a mailbox is perfectly equivalent to smashing up a car. *rolls eyes* While we're dishing out self-righteous arbitrary punishments, I think your head should be lobbed off for making such a retarded post.

    32. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by riceboy50 · · Score: 1

      FYI: They are joking about the fact that corporations are treated as people under the law in most situations.

      --
      ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
    33. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >ANY amount of prison is overkill and more damaging to society then helpful.

      No. This is a felony and he easily deserves the time. Most likely whats going to happen is that he'll get the one year minimum and serve six months. I see that as entirely reasonable for computer crimes. I dont see any difference between this as breaking into the CoS datacenter and kicking over a server or two.

      He's actually very, very lucky that he wasnt charged for a hate crime, which would have added a couple of years more to this case. He and his friends are attacking a religion, which in America is an attack on speech and freedom to worship.

      In civil society, protesters shouldnt be causing any harm, real or virtual. They should be pushing out their message and letting others decide. Look at how much the catholic church has fallen with their child molestation scandals, without anyone ddosing anyone or anyone blowing up a church.

      Once your ideology makes you a criminal and justifies it, then youve become the bad guy. Expect jailtime.

    34. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Teun · · Score: 1

      Which brings up the question, why should they get tax favours as a "religious entity" and at the same time get protection as a "commercial entity"?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    35. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by POTSandPANS · · Score: 1

      But what counts as "Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer"?

      DRM that stops your OS or drives from working properly?

      No, because DRM is installed by corporations, not a person.

      No we're talking about two different things here. DRM and DDoS attacks. Remember what happened to MediaDefender when they DoS'd a website?

      Wait, nevermind...

    36. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

      I don't agree because, as unfortunate as it is, I happen to think that the "averagely sane/intelligent person" would expect a few clauses in the fine-print in this day and age. It's one of the down-sides to living in North America but the vast majority of products come with fine-print from nail polish to kid's toys and I think most people realize that.

      Like I was saying in my original post, unless the product contains no warnings of DRM on the box (and most CDs and games I've come across warn about copy-protection on the label) then I don't see how the companies are breaking the law. My personal opinion on the matter is that free-market choice is the primary weapon against DRM. I didn't buy Spore because of it.

    37. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      You're right, lets ignore crimes being taking place because we don't like the victims, that's the hallmark of a fair and just society!

      and if you don't agree you're clearly a scientologist/terrorist/commie/Jew and you're just as deserving of acts like these taking place!

    38. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Mentioning Europe, I believe that Germany has placed Scientology (spit!) on their terrorist watch list.

      --
    39. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Clever7Devil · · Score: 1

      We tried it, but just couldn't get that horrible taste out of our mouths. Except Apple, we couldn't stop the horrible taste coming out of their mouths.

      --
      "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
    40. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He and his friends are attacking a religion

      Scientology is a scam followed by evil, selfish, quasi-humans, not a valid religion compared to christianity or islam. I have a low opinion of all religions, but scientology doesn't even qualify as one - ALL valid religions incorporate the "golden rule" (do unto others as you would have them do unto to you, love thy neighbour as thyself, however it is worded the principle is straightforward). Scientology actively disavows the golden rule, and instead follows "fair game" (If someone isn't a scientologist, it's okay to lie to them, cheat them and steal from them, harrass and threaten them).

      Once your ideology makes you a criminal and justifies it, then youve become the bad guy.

      Utter bullshit - if the law (and laws are written by humans, often the most corrupt ones) is wrong, being a criminal is moral.

    41. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by DJLuc1d · · Score: 1

      Are you out of your mind ? 547 days for a person in jail.... for 1 day of a website being down. This seems fair to you ? Then I suppose $750 per infringed recording is fair by your standards.

    42. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Loualbano2 · · Score: 1

      I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

      I was trying to point out that 'protected computer' is a legal term and that there are set qualifications for this. I was also trying to point out that a web server qualifies at it is used for interstate or foreign commerce or communication, which is specifically spelled out in the law. This is true of almost any web server if you can show that one person from out of state hit your server as that would be labeled as 'interstate communications'.

      Whether Scientology is an actual religion (legally it is in the US and some other countries, but we all know better) or not doesn't have any bearing on the situation.

      ft

    43. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by meeotch · · Score: 1

      they cannot be president either, yet

      There, fixed that for you.

    44. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are persons in the legal senes, they have the right to free speech, and to bring civil cases.

      They are not citizens, so they do not have the right to vote.

      The personhood has been estblished in case law relatiing to free speech, and as silly as it sounds, it's true.

      A company/coporation is a beurocratic entity with a legal obligation to maximise shareholder return. Any moral or legal questions must be dealth with based on a risk-to-profits basis.

    45. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" so you want people to smash your car up and force yout to do tech support?

    46. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      didn't mention spammers or arsonists or profit at all. I'm just saying the guy caused like 30$ worth of bandwidth dmg and maybe killed one site for less than a day. Disruptive obviously. Worth 1.5years of a humans life? Fuck No. Make him do 40hours comunity service and pay for the bandwidth. That much more than exceeds what he did and it is GOOD for society. You Americans have a very strange sense of justice. 'Punishing the bad guys'. It is not helpful.

    47. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You act like vandalism is no big deal. People who destroy property for fun are wastes of meat and should be locked away.

    48. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Hobson's choice isn't a choice.

    49. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by .orvp · · Score: 1

      No, you didn't mention spammers, arsonists, or profit, but I prefer to have my replies complete so as to not be accused of not thinking things through. To me, I lump spammers, script kiddies, and virus writers together, which is why I said that. I mentioned arsonists not because I compare arsonists to script kiddies (other than doing it for the fun of it) but because it was a counter example to profit. I mentioned profit because that is the case, some people see it as a different problem if money is involved. I wanted to preemptively counter that point.

      But simply letting of a guy with paying for the bandwidth and community service is not a deterrent. Now in an ideal world, we wouldn't have either problem to begin with (Scientology and the script kiddies), but we don't live in an ideal world. People must understand that there are severe consequences when they do not respect others, and this kiddie does not respect others. I'm not saying there isn't a better method than jail, but I am saying 1-2 years does fit the crime as far as what other crimes receive.

      --
      My other sig is just as lame
    50. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by westlake · · Score: 1
      1~1.5 YEARS in prison for a relatively minor script kiddie DDOS? Thats way way WAY too harsh.
      .

      The judge and the jury haven't been assembled to admire your elite - "leet" - skills.

      They have been assembled to decide whether you are guilty of a felony as defined by the law.

      "Totally not fair," I know.

      But that is what makes this particular sort of social encounter something most of us learn to avoid.

    51. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Redoubts · · Score: 1

      Islam is a scam followed by evil, selfish, quasi-humans, not a valid religion compared to Christianity. I have a low opinion of all religions, but Muslims don't even qualify as one - ALL valid religions incorporate the "golden rule" (do unto others as you would have them do unto to you, love thy neighbor as thyself, however it is worded the principle is straightforward). Islam actively disavows the golden rule, and instead follows "fair game" (If someone isn't a Muslim, it's okay to lie to them, cheat them and steal from them, harass and threaten them). See how easy that was?

    52. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be retarded, Islam incorporates the golden rule, unlike the evil of scientology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Islam

    53. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's important to note that the veil of liability can be pierced for criminal behavior, rendering agents of a corporation personally liable.

    54. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why ANYBODY even remotely respects the law in the USA is beyond me. It's written, bought, and paid for by the corporate interests, and signed into law by the corrupt officials who benefit monetarily from said transaction. The law is completely one-sided. The rich and powerful either get off completely when they have violated it, or are given significantly reduced penalties that make a mockery of the whole system. The poor and middle-class get "made an example of" and are FAR more likely to be the victims of vengeful prosecution.

      Just look at the clowns running the country, the treasury, and the banking industries. Right there you have so much greed and corruption that has a direct effect on almost everyone in the world, far more than some rinky-dink website crasher, and these guys will likely not even see the inside of a courtroom, let alone hang for their treason.

      Fuck the USA's laws. They are a joke and need to be completely overhauled and enforced by someone with at least an ounce of integrity.

    55. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by nametaken · · Score: 1

      I'm inclined to agree because it's the Church of Scientology, but if it were the company I work for taking the website down for a day would be god-awful for us.

      Jail time would seem appropriate. Maybe not a 1.5 years + 40k... but jail time.

    56. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Of course not, but the point is that if they're going to break other people's things, their things get broken too. It would be a valuable life lesson.

      "While we're dishing out self-righteous arbitrary punishments, I think your head should be lobbed off for making such a retarded post."

      Wow, that was... shockingly lame. I was especially fond of the "lobbed off", I'm not sure how one would throw my head off of my shoulders, but it sounds intriguing. Made it funnier when you tried to call me a retard.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    57. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he was just a wee part of the DDOS and not among the more practiced of those who took part. The brunt of the attack came not from bots, but from individuals that caved their sites in by repeated requests for large-sized content from their servers. Really simple stuff, not hacking, not zombie masters. A bunch of bored kids with Low Orbit Ion Cannons. Individually, they did nothing even illegal. Together, they showed Miscavige that he was, and is still, the final boss's bitch. Go Anon.

    58. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Have I smashed any mailboxes or run irritating DDoS scripts?

      if(destructiveBehavior.nuisance==true){ punsihment.severity=fitting; }else{ punishment.severity=NULL; }

      How hard is that to understand?

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    59. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Bragador · · Score: 1

      Script kiddies have their place too. When people feel powerless in front of any injustice, they can decide to cross the line and take up arms.

      Since the government and the police aren't doing anything, I happen to approve.

    60. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations are persons in the legal sense.

      No they aren't; corporations cannot vote and they have an unlimited lifespan. They cannot be jailed.

      The corporation is a legal entity to shield shareholders from some liability (both criminally and from civilly), and provide a common entity to direct. Nothing more.

      I agree, corporations aren't people but we can thank the politicians for this! It's just another way government screws it's citizens and politicians get more money in their pocket.

    61. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's retarded is just how easy it is to show that your understanding of law is deficient. I clocked myself: a legal definition of what legally constitutes a person took me almost exactly 14 seconds, including the time it took to launch a new tab in Firefox to do the searching in.

      Not checking your information is idiotic in this age of freely available information; you'd do well to double-check yourself next time so you don't look like a pompous (but wrong) doofus.

      And for those of you too lazy to click the above link, a corporation IS legally considered a "person" in a number of contexts, as defined by a LEGAL dictionary. Don't confuse "person" with Natural Person which is more in line with your comments.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    62. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "Except Apple, we couldn't stop the horrible taste coming out of their mouths"

      Workaround - stop kissing them.

      Just because some people say Apple has good taste doesn't mean they taste good :).

      --
    63. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you're the kind who would put a highschool kid in jail for a year for taking a bat to a mailbox too eh?

      Nah, I'd ask the judge for him to replace my mailbox from money he'd have to earn himself, preferably working in a mailbox factory.

      ANY amount of prison is overkill and more damaging to society then helpful. He should get probation at worst, a fine and community service.

      This is indeed vandalism, but the slap on the wrists that is community service is a laugh. While in this case I agree that jailtime is overkill, having him pay a fitting fine would do as a punishment (HIM, not his legal guardians, although he's legal of age now). By fitting, I mean a fine that would hurt him just enough to force him to work off his debt for a while.

      His objectives were to protest Scientology, and he should have done so within the framework of the law, as so many others have been able to do. The attitude "DERP DERP I'm on the internets, it doesn't really matter DERP" doesn't really fly, and anyone who believes that is thoroughly stupid.

      As for vandalism not deserving jailtime, that depends on the kind of vandalism and the damages incurred. This should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Often a fine would do, but sometimes I do think that a short (we're talking months, or weeks for very juvenile delinquents) trip to jail would make them reconsider their actions. Again, this has to be reviewed on a case by case basis, with a careful look at family and home situation for juveniles. And lastly, a very important factor is recidivism, because if you've punished someone before and they haven't learned from the experience, they're a "danger" (for a lack of better words) to society.

    64. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by seanellis · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Scientology are not, for all their faults, naive when it comes to publicity. Usually, they have to trump up a stick to beat their critics with. It's just dumb to hand them one, ready made and ready to go.

    65. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      No they aren't; corporations cannot vote

      Not on a normal ballot, no. They use the alternative deposit form ballot.

    66. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      You may be correct, but once you start judging others religious beliefs, you start on a very slippery slope. There is little difference between Anonymous persecuting scientoligy and the Romans persecuting cristians, or the cristians persecugint muslims, or the anyone else because they don't believe them to be a "true religion".

      I disagree with Scientology to the extreme, and i'll actively try to convince others of their folly if their even remotely interested, but I can't get behond any militant organization that does the very things they accuse their opponent of.

    67. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, i think the guy would be better off if he jumped off a cliff. Not because of what the gov't would do, but because a poor guy now is going to go through the worst torture of his life, he will probably be "fair gamed". The only thing worse would be being in a north vietnamese prison camp.

      Read up on what they did to paulette cooper. They still do this today, as much in secret as possible. Also, look at how they stalked that reporter a couple of years ago. I bet they are still harassing him. There is a reason why Anonymous is anonymous. If only lovecraft could have envisioned, it didn't take a supernatural demigod to create a mindless and dangerous cult out to destroy society, it only took a mindless Sci-fi writer.

    68. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Teun · · Score: 1
      The label 'protected computer' has been applied and as the Scam is not a government agency the only other possible reason I read in your interesting post is they're running a commercial operation.

      I don't see how an outfit with tax exemption based on religion can at the same time be classed a commercial operation.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    69. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Global protests with hundreds of people holding placards is both more effective *and* lets them keep the moral highground.

      ObXKCD: I get in trouble for showing up contented at protests.

      Seriously though, where did you get the notion that protests are actually effective?

    70. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "warn about copy-protection on the label"

      But do they warn about the stuff they do other than preventing copying?

      Like making your computer more likely to crash, or causing your CD ROM drives to go "missing"? Or "phoning home"? Or making your O/S more easily exploited by other malware?

      Malware authors should take note then and start producing similar clauses in fine print.

    71. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      so as long as it's something you haven't done some night, then it's bad... but if it's something someone else was dumb one night and did... it's bad.

      I really wish I could make you understand how how sound, but you'll just get pissed off and snap back that you're right. I'll let you get the last word in, I'm done.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    72. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      Scientology isn't a religion. Start, middle, and end of story.

      IF you honestly consiter them a religion, then guess what, I'm a religion and my house is my church. Now it's just two religions arguing with eachother.

      Please read up on scientology before accepting them as a real religion, because you're insulting honest religions around the world by letting a company claim this.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    73. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Whether or not they are a religion is not my place to call, nor is it yours. There's a lot of whacky beliefs out there from the FSM and Church of the subgenious to stuff even whackier than scientology. The point is, it's not anyones place to tell another what is and isn't a real religion, regardless of what your personal beliefs may be, otherwise you're no better than any other religion throughout the centuries making claims that other religions aren't "real".

      I mean, is norse religion real? They don't have any kind of "golden rule". Many people still believe it today, or at least subscribe to it. How about Mayan or Native american beliefs?

      I don't like scientology either, and yeah.. i think they scam people out of a lot of money, but then so does the PTL and Jerry Falwell, and even the catholic church. You don't think they built the vatican on good will donations, do you? No, they told people their eternal soul was at risk if they didn't give them a percentage of their income. They told people that their loved ones would go to hell if they didn't buy them a place in heaven.

      It's a *VERY* slippery slope to start calling others beliefs "unreal". Next thing you know, someone is calling yours unreal.

    74. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      Fine then. I believe in fairys and refuse to pay taxes. I also feel that disney is mocking my tiny gods and should pay me fat stacks of cash.

      Fact of the matter is, there has to be a defining point of a religion. And the law does that.

      For a long time, Scientology wasn't a religion, and it's only a religion now because they are an organized cult.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_as_a_state-recognized_religion#United_States_of_America

      If you start allowing people like this to insult the idea of religion, to use people as so many wallets, and hide behind the protections given to religion... doesn't that kill the social meaning of religion as a whole?

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    75. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Look, all organized religion is a scam. It exists to profit itself. It's *ALL* that way.

      What you believe personally for a religion is your own spirituality, and that's between you and your deit(y|ies).

      Just remember, Christianity was a "cult" to the romans. Muslimism was a cult to the christians. You're using your own biases to label others as "cults" just as millions have done throughout history. Some people label Judaism a cult. Some people label Budism a cult.

      I'm not saying it's right that churches get tax breaks, but there is standard in place that the government follows, and apparently CoS meets that standard. Like it or not.

      I know, we all think scientology is ridiculous. But the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of people that believe very strongly in it. It's not your place to rain on their parade.

    76. Re:Unauthorized impairment of a protected computer by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      Did you read on HOW they got that tax break? The history leading to them having the break? Corrput as hell, and not all countrys are falling for it... just greed and influance based policys.

      Regardless though, yes it is my place to rain on their parade... the same way I'd rain on the parade of the hail-bop crazys if I'd have known it was going to happen. It's a cult.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
  3. Anonymous by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess they're not as anonymous as they thought. This anti-scientology campaign is well meant, but they should really try harder not to get caught.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Anonymous by owlnation · · Score: 3, Funny

      Xenu sees all.

      Oh, and sues all too.

    2. Re:Anonymous by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or they could just stay on the legal side of the line. I know a guy who protested outside of a scientology center and as far as I'm concerned there's nothing illegal about that. You could go around handing out flyers explaining to people who you view Scientology as dangerous and still not get arrested. Encourage televised debates about it in a public forum and take it to them there.

      You don't need to try and not get caught if you're not doing anything illegal to start with. If the CoS tries to get you arrested for peaceful protesting they'll be the ones that end up looking like assholes.

    3. Re:Anonymous by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      I think it started on the chans, the same place idiots who hack high profile accounts post the results, go. Many of them aint too smart

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    4. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the CoS tries to get you arrested for peaceful protesting they'll be the ones that end up looking like assholes.

      Judging from their past behavior, I'd say they don't give a damn if they look like assholes.

    5. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but then they know who you are, which is how they intimidate, harass and 'punish' people who speak against them.

    6. Re:Anonymous by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      If they eventually do something illegal they'll end up in hot water. Go after them for emotional distress for all the harassment and milk the CoS for a few million dollars of these fools' money. It'll be a long legal struggle and probably annoying as hell, but the odds are a few idiots from the CoS will harass you during the trial and make it all the worse for themselves. It might also reach the national spotlight and start some kind of public outcry against the CoS.

    7. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true. They get your name and then use their minions to trash you publicly though the individual Cult^H^H^H^HChurch of Scientology members doing so oddly remain mostly anonymous. How's that for irony.

    8. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually 2 people were arrested for protesting Scientology in Atlanta . . . for having a dust mask and a voice amplifier.

    9. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't need to try and not get caught if you're not doing anything illegal to start with. If the CoS tries to get you arrested for peaceful protesting they'll be the ones that end up looking like assholes.

      Keith Henson wasn't that lucky.

    10. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know one as well. His name is Gregg Housh and he has done nothing illegal. However, for the past 6 or 7 months he has had to fight CoS in court over a series of bogus claims. They make up new charges with every hearing, just hoping to ruin him before the lawsuit gets thrown out.

      As far as I am concerned, these people are outlawed. Do whatever you want to them. Make them bleed.

    11. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You must not be familiar with the XenuTV channel on Youtube. People stage protests around Scientology facilities all the time, and because Scientolog has such deep pockets, they've paid off the local cops to not enforce laws when the Scientology thugs start fucking with the protesters.

      The entire police force for the city of Clearwater is owned by the church. They've got video of Scientologists destroying video cameras, and the cops just say things like, "Your camera collided with his fist, that's not a crime."

      Until we can get Scientology to be responsible, and follow the same rules as everybody else, we have to fight them from outside the system, because they've totally corrupted the inside of it.

    12. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because they are in such hot water after killing Lisa Mcpherson...

    13. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could go around handing out flyers explaining to people who you view Scientology as dangerous and still not get arrested.

      By the way, does anybody have any links for such flyers I could print out?

      The reason I want some is that in my town the scientologists have a little cart with 'free' stress tests and I'd like to, when I see them, hand a flyer to people who are leaving the cart so they know what they really did.

      Many years ago, I was asked some innocent questions in town by a researcher who turned out to be a scientology agent. The questions were vague nonsense and she wrote my answers down then asked if I would like to know what it was about. I said yes and she took me to the scientology centre and I did a little personality test on their computers. I was a bit bemused really, the test must have been half accurate though because the person who was going to talk with me about it actually had to call out the top guy from the back and he said it indicated I would be troublesome, heh. I left without being very impressed but the other thing is that they were really browbeating some of the other people they sucked in and it was quite uncomfortable to see how they worked.

    14. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trouble is that they are known to break the law to get at anyone who disagrees with them, so your method fails.

    15. Re:Anonymous by Sibko · · Score: 1

      Or they could just stay on the legal side of the line. I know a guy who protested outside of a scientology center and as far as I'm concerned there's nothing illegal about that. You could go around handing out flyers explaining to people who you view Scientology as dangerous and still not get arrested.

      Well, this still isn't safe to do when the CoS is involved, but regardless of that I think it's quickly becoming apparent [especially to the younger crowd that make up these kinds of groups] that peaceful protests don't change anything anymore.

    16. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun Keith Henson fact: his daughter works on file systems for Linux.

      http://www.valhenson.org/keith.html

    17. Re:Anonymous by DJLuc1d · · Score: 1

      While protesting isn't illegal, there have been instances where scientologists have followed people from protests, hired PIs to investigate protesters, exposed people to harassment after discovering their identity, sued people for criticizing the 'church' and countless other methods of harassment. Google 'Fair Game' policy. While the 'church' says they abandoned the practice (in 1977 I believe, may be wrong), many people who oppose the 'church' and their practices are subject to the same types of retribution that are outlined in the Fair Game policy to this day.

    18. Re:Anonymous by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

      The scariest thing about that whole thing is that "interfering with a religion." is apparently a crime.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    19. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      By the way, does anybody have any links for such flyers I could print out?

      You Found The Card is a decent starting point.

      Your experience with the Oxford Capacity Analysis (the cult's "free personality test") is consistent with reality. The test has very little real value at measuring the things it claims to measure, but it is useful at screening for people who are easily manipulated.

      For a chilling time, print out this answer key to the test. It supplies the "correct" (as far as the Scilon cult is concerned) answers to the personality test. The only person who would sincerely answer every question according to those answer keys is a gullible sociopath, and that's what the cult produces. Just for lulz, memorize the answers, get some fake ID, and try to ace the test. Their script has an interesting way of handling that remote possibility. But it'll still freak out the drone giving the exam.)

      If you get stuck, ask yourself what the most fanatically loyal Nazi would answer if the test were being administered by Adolf himself, and that he had a gun to your head. Or how Patrick Bateman of American Psycho would act.

      31. Could you agree, to strict discipline ?

      Of course, mein Fuehrer. I always follow orders!

      129. Are you in favor of color bar and class distinction?

      Of course not, mein Fuehrer. This test was written in late-60s America, and that kind of prejudice was something for other people, people dumber than us!

      175. Would you rather "wait for something to happen" as opposed to you causing it?

      Of course I'd rather cause it. I'm a walking God!

      180. Do you make allowances for your friends where with others you might judge more severely?

      Of course not. No allowances for personal friends. Obidence to authority first!

      183. Are you embarrassed by a hearty greeting such as a kiss, hug, or pat on the back, if done in public?

      Of course not. Gods walking among men are never embarassed!

      187. Do your acquaintances seem to think more of your abilities than you do?

      Of course not. You ever meet a sociopath who felt anything other than underappreciated? Me either.

      etc. etc. etc.

      Anyone who wonders why the cult is evil has only to review the answer key against all 200 questions. It's a chilling exercise, and I'd recommend everyone take it, if for no other reason than to understand that evil is a compiled form of software, and that this test is what the underlying assembly code looks like.

      Our genome is a gigabyte or two in length (a billion-odd base pairs, 2 bits to represent A/C/G/T). 99.8% of our DNA is identical to that of the chimpanzee. About a megabyte.

      But here we are in the human brain. 200 yes/no questions - 200 bits -- Twenty-five bytes -- is enough to differentiate a non-socipath from a sociopath.

    20. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chanology is barely organised at all. That's kind of the point. There were always going to be some fools who need to lern2internet falling by the wayside, but from the point of view of the overall campaign that doesn't really matter.

      Also, the DDoS was just in the opening salvo phase. Nothing of that nature has been done since.

    21. Re:Anonymous by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Wow. Scientology. Keith Henson. Carolyn Meinel. Child abuse and incest. Its like getting caught in a bizarre intersection of The Twilight Zone and Geraldo.

    22. Re:Anonymous by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1
      *-Hello, RIAA? This Xenu guy is illegally sharing two notes from copyrighted songs via the divine connection to his people, YOU HAVE TO STOP HIM!

      -On our way.*

      Top that.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    23. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous has no members, just as Linux has no members. Anonymous just has people who perform actions under this mysterious cloud labeled Anonymous. If a Linux user (or coder) murdered someone, it doesn't make other Linux users accomplices (yet). The Anonymous community (much as there is a Linux community) thinks the guy did the crime and deserves what he gets, but they don't want this put on the Anonymous community. This is just his doing.

  4. This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What exactly is well meant by it?

    It seems that a crazy cult acts in a legalistic way they don't like, so a bunch of self-appointed web police lower themselves to behave in exactly same way they are decrying.

    1. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by TheSovereign · · Score: 1, Informative

      Exactly the same way? Seriously, you believe that? It just so happens that Anonymous isn't charging us to help stop the flood of misinformation and life destroying cult beliefs. They do it because they feel they need to. Like some sort of crazed anti communism civic duty(think Joe Mccarthy). So, yes they do mean well on a whole. Sometimes the ends justify the means.

    2. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Erm last time i checked anonymous didnt:
      *use copyright law to prevent any embaresing details being released about them
      *get its members to discomuniacte from others who disagree with their teaching/methods
      *get tax discounts for being a registerd church
      *break into federal offices
      *get people arrested for crimes they didn't commit
      *not have cake

      Infact while anonymous may act like a bunch of twats (although they often use the slogan "one of us, isn't as dumb as all of us" or something like that to cover there asses) other than breaking the law they are nothing like Scientology.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    3. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Dan541 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some members of Anonymous are just assholes this guy is one example. allot of asshats are jumping on the Anonymous bandwagon just to do things like this.

      As an enemy of this vicious cult im glad this asshole got caught, You can't say you oppose something due to it's opposition of free-speech, morals, illegal activity ect by committing the exact same offences against it.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    4. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you're going to make spelling mistakes, at least have some fun with them. Instead of 'a registerd church', try 'a registurd church'.

      Just tryin' to help out.

    5. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol? I'm pretty sure Anonymous has:


      *Get its members to discomuniacte from others who disagree with their teaching/methods (gb2gaia, tits or gtfo (and after tits gtfo anyways), etc.

      *Get people arrested for crimes they didn't commit

      And they haven't had cake for a long time.

    6. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i guess you could say Joe McCarthy meant well in the same sense that the church meant well during the Spanish Inquisition or Salem witch trials.

    7. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget the Lisa McPherson case.

    8. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      erm theres a difference between gtfo and discomuniacion in that 1 is asking person A to leave the other is asking person A to never speak to person B.
      If A is freinds with B and A is told to GTFO, he can still talk to B in real life or on any other forum, but if A is told to discommunicate B he cant speak to B anywhere.

      as for getting people arrested for crimes they did not commit. [citation needed]. I doubt no much about them pre the scientology stuff so it is possible, I mean they were just a bunch of trolls before then.

      Last time i saw them they had plenty of cake, although it was before the summer

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    9. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely harmless, you say? You're either completely ignorant or a cultist yourself.

    10. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by horza · · Score: 2, Funny

      What are the results from my Bayesian troll filter:
      * lie, they "do not hurt anyone" - check
      * contradiction, they are a "group nobody pays attention to" but they have "grown in ridiculous numbers" - check
      * straw man argument, citing Heavens Gate and gang warfare - check
      * invoking Godwins Law by mentioning Nazis - check
      * mentioning vi or emacs - negative

      Troll rating 4/5 - post rejected.

      Phillip.

    11. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're still a bunch of trolls. God DAMN *facepalm*. Fuck enturbulation.org; check out http://freya.myvnc.com:9005/ (aka 711chan's /i/) or go onto torchan. I'd be surprised is 420chan wasn't still in the /i/nvasion business. Damn you faggots sure are gullible. Encyclopediadramatica also does a good job of whipping up the skiddies and pointing them at people whose greatest offense was putting up a blog or some personal art on deviantart.

      If you think Anonymous is moral and righteous why don't you go have a chat with snapesnogger? Anonymous completely ruined her life for essentially no reason at all. Also they had a raid a few months back where they induced seizures by posting flashing gifs on epileptic message boards.

      That's right, you're talking about assholes whose idea of a good time is giving people seizures.

      enturbulation et al are not Anonymous -in fact most Anonymous consider the enturbulation crowd to be 'moralfags', 'cancer' and 'protestfags'.

      Anonymous is pure and simply an online vigilante mob -perdiod. Frankly, I'd consider donating money to scientology if I thought they would rid the net of the *channers for once and for all. Before it's all said and done they're going to have a far more destructive effect on the internet than a positive one.

    12. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by jonaskoelker · · Score: 3, Funny

      'a registurd church'.

      I would've went with 'a registard church'.

    13. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *not have cake

      You may be confusing Scientologists with GLaDOS.

    14. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Google "Scientology fair game"

      This cult is VERY dangerous, and that is why many of us oppose it.

      Are you a victim of this cult? your post suggests that you are!

      Who is Anonymous? No Scientologist has EVER answered that question I have asked it hundreds of times by now and no one has EVER been able to provide an answer. Yet you all act as if you know.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    15. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are the idealists, and then there are the people who jump on the bandwagon of a rising ideology as a vehicle for power and legitmacy. The latter do not believe in the ideology, though they will insist that they do.

      For a group that's as loosely-knit as Anonymous, it's difficult to tell who belongs to which group. At the same time, it's difficult for members of the latter to gain any significant amount of power and do real damage.

    16. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous is no longer interested in Scientology.

      The protest fags continue on with a dead cause. Anonymous is for the moment. We started a battle, we won a battle. We do not stick around to see the war.

    17. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You spineless pussy. It's law-abiding cowards like you that make this world the shit place it is today.

    18. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's a bit of a difference. For example, joe mccarthy would have been more useful operating in a country that was actually being threatened internally by communism in an open manner. While soviet spies abounded, and were extremely dangerous (rosenbergs), there wasn't an open socialist party with any significant standing or resources threatening us from within. Same thing with the inquisition and the witch trials. The worst part about the witch trials is that there was never a threat, the inquisition was a reaction to the moors and mccarthy to the commies. The tragedy was that they proceeded to attack people with different political or religious beliefs.

    19. Re:This anti-scientology campaign is well meant by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      they were all motivated by ignorance, intolerance, and irrational hate/fear--not to mention a sense of self-righteousness.

      even if there had been an influential socialist movement in the U.S. the government has no business persecuting people for their political or philosophical views. there's a huge difference between being a Soviet Spy and lobbying for worker rights, socialized health care, etc. if America, as a society, became more progressive and adopted a socialist culture, then the government should simply carry out the will of the people. people should shape the government, the government should not shape people.

      the government should never abuse its power to suppress the voices or opinions or its people. McCarthyism was a clear case of stringing up the dissidents and labeling them enemies of the state. similar persecution of social/political activists is happening today under the banner of combating terrorism. what the McCarthyists were doing was the same as what the Leninists and Stalinists were doing--they were forcing a political ideology onto a society through fear, propaganda & coercion. he did not like the progressive culture that was sweeping across America. so he took it upon himself to abuse his political power and privilege to eradicate progressive views.

      the tragedy is that these events happened at all.

  5. Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because you disagree with a group (as I do, in this case) does not mean that you can DDoS them. That is not your right, and the law says that you should be punished. If you want to take the moral high ground (in your opinion), prepare for the legal consequences.

    1. Re:Your Rights Online? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If i went into tourist information and asked for some information, they would presumable tell me what i wanted to know.

      If i got 500 people to do the same thing it would not be a crime, they would probably just stop answering.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    2. Re:Your Rights Online? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      The real irony is when that same person talks about protecting freedoms such as free-speech, which they obviously cannot be a supporter of in order to carry out a DDoS.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    3. Re:Your Rights Online? by Endo13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can also be arrested for creating a public nuisance.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    4. Re:Your Rights Online? by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Well, 'protecting' free-speech is kind of relative. If you try to shut down the person(s) trying to shut down free-speech, are you protecting it or not?

      Also, a website is kind of a broad definition of 'speech'. Hence the controversy over whether or not blogs fall under the 'freedom of speech' clause.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    5. Re:Your Rights Online? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      You either support free-speech of you don't, supporting only what you happen to agree with is not free-speech. If someone says something I don't like (and plent of people do) that is their right to say it, just as I have the right to say things they don't like.

      The line is drawn when you post to a website that you do not own because the owner of that site has the right to delete your content if they wish, but is somebody dishonestly forges a DMCA notice like Scientology has been, then it becomes an attack simply because it is done dishonestly.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    6. Re:Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should a criminal enterprise, no less a collection of umbrella corporations designed to hide the truth and remove personal liability from leaders of said criminal enterprise, have the right to freedom of speech?

      Freedom of speech is not unlimited. John Stuart Mill, perhaps the greatest proponent for unlimited freedom of speech even acknowledged: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others". The oft used example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is not protected speech, because causing a stampede or doing something to incite a riot is likely to harm people.

      Scientology is a fundamentally corrupt entity. It profits from harming people. Any non-polluted layman given the complete facts of the matter, will inevitably come to this conclusion. Scientology attempts to keep its image clean by suppressing information. How is it not fair that they be suppressed in return? Also, last I heard, it was still We The People, not We The Corporations. While the DDoS thing was wrong to do, it's not because it in any way limited the freedom of expression of this criminal organization posing as a religion, posing as a philosophy.

    7. Re:Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree. What else TF does that remind me of, just can't remember.

    8. Re:Your Rights Online? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      You either support free-speech of you don't

      Well then I don't because I don't support yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, not do I support shouting "Look out! He's got a gun!" in an airplane.

      If speech was TRULY free you could do those things and not get punsihed. It's just speech, after all.

      I think most reasonable people agree that there are ossacions where it is necessary and desirable to limit speech. (Such as not telling the germans we cracked the code during WWII, for example.) There are cases where a compelling public good outweighs the 1st amendment.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    9. Re:Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the time the site was offline, many people were not able to visit the site and potentially convert to Scientology. Also, the attack gained publicity for anti-Scientology. In a way, he did more to hurt Scientology than the protests that were held. He potentially saved many people from unhappy lives.

      People who dare to take the moral high ground when the rest of us are afraid to should not be reprimanded by the rest of us for breaking the law. They are the ones that do the work for us.

      If you want to take the moral high ground (in your opinion), prepare for the legal consequences.

      You won't say that to Martin Luther King, Jr. Why would you say so now? Scientology may not be as large of a social injustice as racism but it is just as serious.

    10. Re:Your Rights Online? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Why should YOU have free-speech?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    11. Re:Your Rights Online? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I agree,
      There are limits.

      Is it ok to yell "fire" in your own home? last I checked it was.

      Who has the right to decide that Scientology should be censored on their own site?

      Do you have a website? and if so is it ok for me to DoS it if I disagree with your opinion?

      Your examples don't really fit all that well because a website is different from a theatre or airline.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    12. Re:Your Rights Online? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Do you have a website? and if so is it ok for me to DoS it if I disagree with your opinion?

      Would you feel differently about DDOSing an Al-Qaeda recruiting site? Why? Isn't a web site just speech?

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    13. Re:Your Rights Online? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Al-Qaeda have every right to place a website on the Internet, if you don't like it's content that DONT visit it.

      Free-speech is just that if you want to support it you have to also support other peoples rights to it regardless of ownership or content.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    14. Re:Your Rights Online? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Al-Qaeda have every right to place a website on the Internet, if you don't like it's content that DONT visit it. Free-speech is just that if you want to support it you have to also support other peoples rights to it regardless of ownership or content.

      Myself, and I would think most other civilized people in the world would disagree with you there.

      For example, it is illegal to threaten to kill someone. It is "only speech" but we as a society have decided that it is worth placing a limit on this speech and even throwing people in jail for doing so. There are obvious negatives to society by allowing people to go around and threaten other's lives with impunity.

      In the real world, freedom of speech/religion/assembly are all naturally limited to what is reasonable. These freedoms aren't a guarantee that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want but rather exist to force the gov't to show a compelling need for the limitation of these freedoms and a means by which the reasonableness of limitations can be challenged. Compare this to parking on the street which can be limited pretty much arbitrarily because it is not a guaranteed freedom.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    15. Re:Your Rights Online? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Al-Qaeda have every right to place a website on the Internet, if you don't like it's content that DONT visit it.
      Free-speech is just that if you want to support it you have to also support other peoples rights to it regardless of ownership or content.

      Myself, and I would think most other civilized people in the world would disagree with you there.

      That's because most people do not support free-speech, I host a blog for a friend that gets routinely DoSed. That leads to to believe that humans in general will attack anything they disagree with.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  6. my take on anonymous vs scientology by gadabyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a bunch of foolish kids with nothing better to do than form a mob, and be outraged at the freedom to be foolish and join another mob.

    irony floats off, unnoticed.

    --
    the united states is a nation of laws; badly written and randomly enforced -- frank zappa
    1. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we arn't outraged at their freedom to join the mob, we are outraged at the actions of the other mob.

    2. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by gadabyte · · Score: 1

      i just think there's an awful lof of crap to be outraged at in our world, and despite the insidious nature of scientology, it's still pretty low on the list.

      but that's just me.

      --
      the united states is a nation of laws; badly written and randomly enforced -- frank zappa
    3. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      People lose their freedoms when they join the other mob you mention, please try to keep up.

    4. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      The best punishment would be to order him to undergo some psychoanalysis. We should recommend some therapists, that would help.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    5. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but if you don't have the freedom to give up your freedom, then that's not freedom!

    6. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no, a cult that is known for murdering it's own members and having a policy of "anything goes" against it's detractors does get a pretty high ranking in the list of things to be outraged at.

      Posting as AC for obvious reasons.

    7. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a dangerous cult responsible for many murders and the largest infiltration of government. They are insane, and should be stopped at all cost.

    8. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by CharliePowers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know, the protests in the 60's were also full of "foolish kids" but they changed the world in many ways for the better. I don't see anything wrong with people banding together to fight against evil. I don't condone what this kid did but in every movement there are bad apples which are not representative of the group. Anonymous is unlike anything the world has ever seen before and they are fighting against an evil Space Opera Cult. God Speed Anonymous.

    9. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're posting AC because you're so embarrassed by the fact you can't tell IT'S from ITS. Look, it's (IT IS) so simple even an 8 year old can master it, why can't you?

    10. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by gadabyte · · Score: 1

      Well, no, a cult that is known for murdering it's own members and having a policy of "anything goes" against it's detractors does get a pretty high ranking in the list of things to be outraged at.

      oh, you mean like christianity, islam, etc...

      personally, i'm more concerned with things like trillions of dollars and thousands of lives being frivolously thrown away in an unnecessary war, the fact that the global economy is on the verge of "systemic failure," erosion of civil rights, the fact that i have to decide between getting health care and paying off my student loans, the drug war (and other similar legislation that prevents me from having dominion over my own body), the fact that george w. bush can be elected president of the US (and the fact that 1/3 of the country thinks he's hitler, and another 1/3 thinks he was divinely appointed), etc.

      like i said, i recognize the insidious nature of scientology. i just have better things to worry about than trying to save people like cruise and travolta from their hilarious lack of intelligence.

      People lose their freedoms when they join the other mob you mention, please try to keep up.

      please try to think of the definition of freedom. without the liberty to be a complete dumbass, treat a (pretty poor) sci-fi writer as a prophet, and give your wealth and free will to his religion - it ain't really freedom. if one of the side effects of freedom is fools throwing themselves on a proverbial sword, so be it.

      best of luck on your crusade to rid the world of idiocy.

      The best punishment would be to order him to undergo some psychoanalysis. We should recommend some therapists, that would help.

      noted. i imagine some of my friends would concur.

      You know, the protests in the 60's were also full of "foolish kids" but they changed the world in many ways for the better. I don't see anything wrong with people banding together to fight against evil.

      nor do i. i just think there are:

      • greater evils to be fought
      • more pressing evils to be fought
      • evils that directly affect all of us to be fought

      and the notion that anonymous is "unlike anything the world has seen before" is, i'm sorry, pretty funny. especially coming on the tail of you comparing them to 60's radicalism. and really, it only reinforces my belief that many (people in general, not just those in anonymous) have little sense of history, and haven't put much thought into the human condition, nor the benefits and perils of freedom.

      --
      the united states is a nation of laws; badly written and randomly enforced -- frank zappa
    11. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      Anyone stupid enough to join of their own free will isn't my problem... however people who have been cut off from their family, or WANT out do need to know they aren't the only ones who thinks there's something wrong with the cult.

      I'm not going to argue about this, as no one has ever, EVER, EVER had their mind changed by what someone said online... ever. Everyone assumes the 10 minutes of glancing over one side of an issue qualifys them as an expert... and they're free to feel that way if they want... that's one of the many joys of freedom. Though it doesn't make them correct on anything..

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    12. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stopped at all cost.

      You're not sounding so sane yourself, ace.

    13. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to argue about this, as no one has ever, EVER, EVER had their mind changed by what someone said online... ever.

      I was going to disagree with you... but after reading this.. I changed my mind.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    14. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no, a cult that is known for murdering it's own members and having a policy of "anything goes" against it's detractors does get a pretty high ranking in the list of things to be outraged at.

      It also wouldn't be that suprising for such an entity to use agents provocateurs. Even those who don't actually know that is what they are. Whilst this kind of thing is more common with governments the likes of the CoS probably feel that if they can infiltrate the US Government they can get up to the same kind of things as the CIA, MI5, Mossad, etc

    15. Re:my take on anonymous vs scientology by Rennt · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with your sentiment that there are much more serious problems facing the world today than Scientology. But around the world there are activist movements targeting most if not all of the greater evils you identified. Not to be too pointed, but how many of them are you involved with?

      I mean if on a given day there were two protests going on at the same time - say Anonymous or an anti-war rally, then I would understand skipping the Annon protest, but how often does that happen?

      I know I would rather spend my free time trying to make a difference to SOMETHING, if only because I hate the feeling that I might be part of a system that I can't change. When a protest for something more evil comes along, I'll attend that one too.

      Of course the main reason that most btards are involved is because simply because it is FUN, not out of a real sense of moral outrage, but don't let that stop you joining the party.

  7. Anonymous Script Kiddies by kromozone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't see how this guy got caught. If he was running a botnet over IRC, he should have been able to simply log in, issue commands for which target to attack, and disconnect. Or was he posting copy and paste scripts on the chans who then divulged his IP to the feds? Seems like the majority of Anonymous are idiots. Recently, we have the guy using cTunnel to access Palin's email account, when he could have easily used TOR and had essentially 0% chance of being caught, or if that's to hard, at least multiple web-based proxies. Anyway, I'm curious to know how this guy got nailed. Does anyone have any info on how they tracked him down?

  8. Ends jusify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this crime justifiable though? It is illegal and harmful, but do the ends justify the means in this case?

    I'm not sure

  9. "A mysterious underground group" by Esteanil · · Score: 0, Redundant

    According to physorg: "A teenager hacker has admitted carrying out a cyber attack that crashed Church of Scientology websites as part of a campaign by a mysterious underground group, justice officials said Friday."

    The /b/tards are going to love this...

    --
    I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
    1. Re:"A mysterious underground group" by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      "a mysterious underground group"

      How scary! Sounds like puffery by law enforcement trying to justify spending so much time and money to track down one script-kiddy. Strange how they never get off their butts when it's Scientology that's doing the cyber-attacks.

      Here's a tip for the FBI and SS: you can find hundreds of these mysterious underground people peacefully picketing outside Scientology franchises at this very moment.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  10. Re:Anonymous Script Kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyway, I'm curious to know how this guy got nailed. Does anyone have any info on how they tracked him down?

    I think pedobear turned state's witness.

  11. Link to creepy Tom Cruise video by manekineko2 · · Score: 1

    Anyone have a link to the creepy Tom Cruise video?

    1. Re:Link to creepy Tom Cruise video by rhesuspieces00 · · Score: 5, Informative
    2. Re:Link to creepy Tom Cruise video by mweather · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anyone have a link to the creepy Tom Cruise video?

      You're going to have to be more specific.

    3. Re:Link to creepy Tom Cruise video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the trick is to be less specific. As in "a link to a creepy Tom Cruise video. Although you could argue that it is redundant and leave it as "a link to a Tom Cruise video".

    4. Re:Link to creepy Tom Cruise video by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1
      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    5. Re:Link to creepy Tom Cruise video by Rennt · · Score: 1
  12. Easy defense.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Xenu made me do it Your Honor. I plead not guilty by reason of following commands of the Galactic Overlord. Hail Xenu!

  13. Scientology...Bad. Pentagon...Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientology is bad compared to...?

    Hack a bank if you've got real balls.

  14. Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it seems that no one takes them seriously, its important to note that this is a publicity thing. Maybe if people would listen to their warnings about this large cult, stuff like this wouldnt have to happen

  15. business practices by paniq · · Score: 5, Funny

    scientology is not a religion, it's a business. if you want to drive them out of business, compete with them. make up a story that is even crazier to woo film stars and rake in the big rewards.

    Join the just founded Roflology. we believe that God, who actually DID create the earth, was in turn created by a being named GLaDOS, an artificial intelligence from the future which traveled back in time, to the moment before time was about to be created. since then, many men are being born with a device attached to the inside of their noses called the Super-Human-Inhibition-Transponder, which, as the name suggests, inhibits superhuman abilities that men actually possess, like reading minds, seeing into the future and doing the dishes. This device powers itself from the resonant properties of metal threads in paper sheets, which come disguised as dollar or euro bills.

    Roflology promises to help you regain your superhuman abilities. The first step is to store your money in a safe place, where it can't hurt you. The second step is a 120 years training process, which helps you to achieve immortality. Once you can no longer die, there follows another 50 years of training (piece of cake for an immortal), until superhuman qualities emerge. As a finale, you will receive a certificate and a little present.

    Do one of our tests today to find out whether you are full of S.H.I.T.!

    --
    Do not trust this signature.
    1. Re:business practices by LKM · · Score: 3, Informative

      Scientology isn't a business, it's a scam. They sell things which don't work, brainwash the people to whom they sell their things, and harass people whom they can't sell their things to.

    2. Re:business practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    3. Re:business practices by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > scientology is not a religion, it's a business. if you want to drive them out of
      > business, compete with them. make up a story that is even crazier...

      How about one that involves priests who can magically transform cookies into human flesh which the followers then eat? Think that would fly?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:business practices by johndmartiniii · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mod parent funny or insightful.

      One neato thing about looking at religious systems from a social science perspective is that before long you realize how much bullshit they share.

      --
      If you don't know what you're doing, you can't make mistakes.
    5. Re:business practices by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Oh stop it Mr. Jobs. You're just jealous.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:business practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...another 50 years of training (piece of cake for an immortal)...

      If you were really a GLaDOS-fearing Roflologist, you'd already know that the cake is a lie.

    7. Re:business practices by mpe · · Score: 1

      How about one that involves priests who can magically transform cookies into human flesh which the followers then eat? Think that would fly?

      If you want flying there's one involving a construct made out of pasta.

    8. Re:business practices by mpe · · Score: 1

      Scientology isn't a business, it's a scam.

      It's not like the two are mutually exclusive.

      They sell things which don't work, brainwash the people to whom they sell their things, and harass people whom they can't sell their things to.

      There are software companies who'd fit that description :)

    9. Re:business practices by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Eew. Human flesh? Why would anybody eat that?

      But if it'll get me a bunch of virgins, sign me up.

    10. Re:business practices by dkf · · Score: 1

      They sell things which don't work, brainwash the people to whom they sell their things, and harass people whom they can't sell their things to.

      There are software companies who'd fit that description :)

      There used to be quite a few banks who fit that description too.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    11. Re:business practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ignorance is not "insightful"

    12. Re:business practices by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Agreed, it maybe fun to attack Scientology, but if you look at it from a more general point of view they are all the same. Making absurd claims about Nature and taking your money and time in return for something they cannot guarantee to deliver.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    13. Re:business practices by LKM · · Score: 1

      Scientology isn't a business, it's a scam.

      It's not like the two are mutually exclusive.

      Typically, businesses relying on scams get shut down. It seems shutting down a "religion" is a bit harder. Perhaps more businesses should try to declare themselves as "religions."

    14. Re:business practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, that's WAY too crazy. I'm thinking spaghetti.

    15. Re:business practices by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Now, c'mon guys, Jobs isnt that bad. At least he doesnt kill people, or condone their harasment.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  16. Re:Scientology...Bad. Pentagon...Good? by Zibri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Scientology is bad compared to...?

    Sanity.

  17. i looked at their by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hacker HQ site. (Link is available from E.Dramatica.) The material is at the beginner level. For example, their idea of DDoS is to have a central server that co-ordinates the drones with a SQL table and Python on the clients. However, their Firefox addon recommendations are very good.

  18. Alternate Methods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    To the best of my knowledge, the DDOS attacks stopped in January. The people who are currently protesting are not using those methods.

    You can check out what they are up to at
    http://forums.scientology-exposed.com/
    http://forums.whyweprotest.net/

    To find out why people are still protesting start reading the stories here
    http://www.forum.exscn.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2
    http://www.exscientologykids.com/voicesinunison.html

    Former scientologists are finally starting to have the courage to speak out and need to be supported.

    In my home town alone, a former scientologist's apartment has been broken into & had file boxes stolen (left the TV, DVDs & laptop), slashed her car tires, cut the wires in her car (including the brake lights), ran her off the road, stalked her at the neighborhood swimming pool & tried to intimidate her there with her kids, have been trying to mentally fuck with her by turning off her circuit breakers for her apartment, have had vans & PIs staking out her home & following her.

    These are not nice people. They need to be exposed.

    1. Re:Alternate Methods by Baldur_of_Asgard · · Score: 1

      agreed. I'm surprised that the Scilons got him, but apparently they have a better security apparatus than the U.S. gov't.

      But Scientology is also just as corrupt as the U.S. gov't, and I wonder if judicial corruption fed into this sentence, which is longer than I believe is justified.

      Certainly, the government doesn't seem to care about DDOS attacks against other, legitimate minorities, so at the very least the Co$ has hired some competent lawyers.

  19. cruel and unusual? by wakingrufus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    fair enough that this guy is being convicted, but is a prison sentence really fair for a DDoS attack?

    1. Re:cruel and unusual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on weather or not the people being DDoS'd are rich.

    2. Re:cruel and unusual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fair enough that this guy is being convicted, but is a prison sentence really fair for a DDoS attack?

      Cruel: yes.
      Unusual: no.

      Hope that helps.

        -AC

  20. If we can by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    charge somebody with inciting violence, why we charge Scientology with with inciting this guy to commit this horrendous "crime"?

    --
    What?
    1. Re:If we can by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Um, why can't we...?

      --
      What?
  21. Actually... by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, I doubt that any campaign needs this kind of an asshat in the first place. It just creates the image of Scientology being the innocent victims, and their opponents being a bunch of criminals. We can do without that kind of making martyrs.

    E.g., no offense, but you seem to do that generalization yourself when you paint the whole campaign as needing to try to not get caught. I'm not saying that to pick on you, but just to illustrate the kind of association that gets made. If even you, presumably a smart guy, fall for that kind of guilt by association, imagine how much easier that is for someone who understands computers and scientology even less.

    Seriously, read any advocacy FAQ (e.g., start with the Linux one) and you'll see that all progress is actually made by the people who keep a professional and helpful attitude about it. Rabid zealots and asshat script kiddies are the kind you _don't_ want your movement to be associated with, because it ruins your whole credibility. That kind of "friends" are literally worse than your enemies.

    And in this case it also ruins the whole moral high ground aspect. This guy infected (or help create a market for infecting) a bunch of innocent people's computers, and stuffed their internet connection to do his DDOS attack. That's actual harm done to innocents. It's an evil act. Once you show that kind of lack of morals or of respect for your fellow human, you just don't have a high ground from which to look down upon scientology.

    If you will, it's a bit like reading about Mao denouncing the Soviet Union leaders. You're not inclined to rally on his side, because he's an evil fuck himself. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is still a sociopathic prick.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Actually... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Rabid zealots and asshat script kiddies are the kind you _don't_ want your movement to be associated with, because it ruins your whole credibility. That kind of "friends" are literally worse than your enemies.

      Assuming they are not actually your enemies pretending to be your "friends" in the first place. The CoS employing agents provocateurs would hardly be a suprise...

    2. Re:Actually... by horza · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy as Anon does not have a designated leader whereas Mao can be said to speak for the entire regime.

      I am sure you would like this supposed gift of a moral high-ground, but Moraelin where were you when he and the others kicked off this mini-revolution? Playing Warcraft? The scripts I saw were not trojans, you had to consciously install and run them, so I doubt he was inconveniencing 'innocents' (I don't think we share the same definition of "actual harm" also). And there are worse crimes than minor vandalism befitting "an evil act".

      It's an 18-year old kid causing mischief against a criminal organisation nobody likes. You obviously don't care about him, and probably not many people do. His life is ruined, and that's the end of the story for this case. Life goes on.

      Phillip.

    3. Re:Actually... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy as Anon does not have a designated leader whereas Mao can be said to speak for the entire regime.

      Maybe, but my point was about individual asshats, rather than about whether or not he can speak for a whole group. If that bothers you, you could replace "Jack The Ripper" or the Taliban instead of "Mao" there, and the point still stands.

      I am sure you would like this supposed gift of a moral high-ground, but Moraelin where were you when he and the others kicked off this mini-revolution? Playing Warcraft?

      Let's just say that between person X playing Warcraft and person Y doing vandalism and thus breaking the law... in my book X has the higher moral standing. Or Y has the lower one.

      And there are worse crimes than minor vandalism befitting "an evil act".

      Well, no doubt there, but just because there are worse crimes, it doesn't excuse this one. And I'm sure that the "there are worse crimes" factor _has_ been taken into account when they gave him 1 to 1.5 years, instead of, say, 20 to life.

      It's an 18-year old kid causing mischief against a criminal organisation nobody likes.

      Just a thought: "A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular." -- Adlai Stevenson.

      We came a long way since the days when you could be run out of town, or outright killed, for being the unpopular guy. Back then, it just created group think, and the tyranny of those who could raise the mob against you. Pretty much all the freedoms you have, not to mention a good chunk of the economic growth, have come to be just because someone wasn't too affraid to say what they think. Even if it was the safety of being in a like-minded group. Now we let people be even more open about it, and I think that we all benefit from that.

      So let's not throw that away.

      And we've had arbitrary justice before, and there have been some bloody revolts to get the rule of the law instead. Vigilante justice is a huge step back in that aspect too.

      Yes, unfortunately the system does get gamed by asshats like the CoS, but vigilante justice is still not the answer.

      Plus, where would you stop? Where is the unpopularity threshold where it's ok to take the law in your own hands? E.g., if you drive your sports car in a very poor neighbourhood, is it ok for them to key it because the whole neighbourhood feels offended? What about if you're an atheist in a bible-thumping town? Or the nerd in a yuppie school? Is it ok to beat you up because 90% of the high school population doesn't like your kind?

      I really don't think we ought to open that can of worms. There are more reasons to be unpopular when you're, in fact, right, than it is to be when you're a criminal organization. (Al Capone was insanely popular, for example.)

      You obviously don't care about him, and probably not many people do.

      Guilty as charged. I don't feel much sympathy there.

      His life is ruined,

      He brought it upon himself.

      and that's the end of the story for this case. Life goes on.

      Obviously.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    4. Re:Actually... by horza · · Score: 1

      "Maybe, but my point was about individual asshats, rather than about whether or not he can speak for a whole group. If that bothers you, you could replace "Jack The Ripper" or the Taliban instead of "Mao" there, and the point still stands."

      I disagree with this. It's as irrational as hating all Muslims because one happened to set off a bomb. The point I wished to make is that it is an individual act and did not even try to pretend to represent any group or organisation. Some may try and label afterwards but that does not necessarily represent the reality.

      Let's just say that between person X playing Warcraft and person Y doing vandalism and thus breaking the law... in my book X has the higher moral standing. Or Y has the lower one.

      There are many that disagree. In the UK we have one case of an aristocrat blatantly causing criminal damage by trampling genetically modified crops, as he believes it could contaminate nearby farms. He believes he has a higher moral standing, despite doing vandalism and breaking the law. Presuming you are in the USA, you only have to look at the opinions and laws for abortion to see things are never quite black and white. In my book common sense trumps law and you have to look at the overall damage or benefits to society.

      Well, no doubt there, but just because there are worse crimes, it doesn't excuse this one. And I'm sure that the "there are worse crimes" factor _has_ been taken into account when they gave him 1 to 1.5 years, instead of, say, 20 to life.

      A year and a half when you are 18 is pretty serious, and by throwing somebody in jail instead of giving a token fine or a few hours community service will just provide fodder for the penal system to churn out yet another repeat offender. The punishment should fit the crime, and I don't think society needs to be physically protected from some kid that runs some stupid script he downloaded off the Internet. If he takes from society he should be made to give back to society, but spending taxpayers money to incarcerate him seems counterproductive to me (but am I happy to agree to disagree on this point if you wish).

      The guy isn't a real-life Charles Bronson, it's some stupid kid that ran a computer program. I think fundamentally we both agree that what he did was silly. I just do not agree with your hardcore line that if you let your hard lines of law slip an inch then society will degenerate into anarchy, and that if any random transgressors are picked up they should be crucified as an example.

      If a kid gets behind the wheel of a car drunk and runs down a child then I could understand your passion. I think that in this case with all the attention he has already probably had the fright of his life and the road to rehabilitation is probably short.

      Phillip.

    5. Re:Actually... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      In the UK we have one case of an aristocrat blatantly causing criminal damage by trampling genetically modified crops, as he believes it could contaminate nearby farms. He believes he has a higher moral standing, despite doing vandalism and breaking the law. Presuming you are in the USA, you only have to look at the opinions and laws for abortion to see things are never quite black and white. In my book common sense trumps law and you have to look at the overall damage or benefits to society.

      Actually, you just illustrate why I'm against people taking the law into their own hands. Yes, he _believes_ he's doing all that great stuff and saving the world. I'd rather he fucked off and left it to the law and democracy to decide that kind of thing. Those guys shooting abortion doctors too believe that their own moral system that they feel they have to impose on anyone else. I think we can agree pretty quickly that they're actually deluded idiots, and doing more harm than good.

      Exactly that mentality that "common sense trumps law" is what causes a problem.

      Look, the laws are just what the majority agreed upon. With what right can one person decide that he's so enlightened as to decide for everyone else? No, seriously. I'm not willing to give that right to a dictator, and I'm surely not willing to give it to Joe Sixpack.

      Additionally, you'll notice that the legal system is all about safeguards against abuse, and about hearing the other side of the story too. Because nobody is omniscient. We all know half the story, or less.

      E.g., what if one particular GM crop doesn't actually do whatever evils that guy imagines them to do? Do you think he's done extensive testing of exactly what crops are used there, and what the extra genes do?

      Vigilantes taking the law in their own hands, don't have room for all those safeguards, hearing witnesses and experts first, and much less for the other guy's half of the story. It's bypasses the whole idea that we built society and justice upon.

      The guy isn't a real-life Charles Bronson, it's some stupid kid that ran a computer program. I think fundamentally we both agree that what he did was silly. I just do not agree with your hardcore line that if you let your hard lines of law slip an inch then society will degenerate into anarchy, and that if any random transgressors are picked up they should be crucified as an example.

      If a kid gets behind the wheel of a car drunk and runs down a child then I could understand your passion. I think that in this case with all the attention he has already probably had the fright of his life and the road to rehabilitation is probably short.

      No, I'm actually pretty dispassionate about what happens to this one dolt. And I'm certainly not proposing to crucify him.

      But there _is_ a law, he knew the risks, so I don't have any problem with seeing it applied either.

      What I am passionate about is more the idea, than the actual person. I don't think that going vigilante is the right course of action, regardless of for what cause. And above all I don't think asshats are what any righteous cause needs.

      To use your example, I don't know whether GM crops are good or bad, but asshats like the one you describe don't do that cause any good. _If_ you're going to fight against GM crops, you don't want to become known as "those crazy guys destroying other people's crops." It doesn't take too many people like that to put the whole cause in a bad light, _and_ to paint your opponents in the sympathetic light of being the innocent victims of a few crazies. If you want to win that fight, you want to be the guys with the good PR image and the scientific facts to back up your position.

      Note that I'm neither opposing GM crops, nor saying you do. I'm just using a random example. If you believe cause X is right, whichever that X might be, going vigilante about it is actually bad for that cause X. That's all I'm trying to say. In too many words.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    6. Re:Actually... by horza · · Score: 1

      Interesting first phrase "leave it to the law and democracy", it should be the other way around as democracy dictates policy which then gets implemented as law. Though we have a legal system going back hundreds of years, laws have evolved slowly yet have always necessarily lagged behind society. If people "fucked off and left it to the law and democracy" then here women still wouldn't have the vote.

      There is a difference between a vigilante and somebody with a social conscience. A vigilante believes the system has failed, hence evolves their own moral code and gifts themselves the right to enforce it. Somebody with a social conscience believes they can change the system by leading by example. With the case of the aristocrat I would say the latter. He knows he can't personally stomp on every GM crop in the country and it was a symbolic gesture. It was good for cause X as it sent a warning to the GM industry that not matter how many strings they pull in Westminister the voices of the farmers living near these crops WILL be heard.

      I am not condoning people breaking the law when they feel like it and agree with you that we want to minimise vigilante action. It is just that people often feel forced into vigilante action when they feel the law has failed them and that we should be looking at their motives as well as censuring their actions. If a lot of people are forced into such desperate measures then we should be examining the law and seeing if it needs to be changed.

      It takes an element of bravery to break the law as it involves personal risk. What this kid did I agree was a vigilante action, but it had good intentions. He wasn't hacking credit card details from an ecommerce store, he was causing a nuisance to a criminal organisation that destroys hundreds of lives. Sure he made a mistake in the means he used, but he is an easily influenced 18 year old kid. That kind of passion should be channeled, not killed.

      I think there an awful lot of readers on Slashdot who will tut and disapprove of his actions, but are secretly quite pleased at what he did. About PR and "cause X" I go back to my point there is NO actual group or organisation behind any attacks on Scientology, it is just that normal people know it is wrong and have an urge to help the victims and prevent more from becoming victims. It's a perfectly human thing.

      Phillip.

    7. Re:Actually... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      About PR and "cause X" I go back to my point there is NO actual group or organisation behind any attacks on Scientology

      I never said it had to be an organised thing. If X people try to effect change Y, that's their "cause" I'm talking about. Even if they're not organized or centralized at all. Even if they don't know each other even exists.

      All I'm saying is that if Y people fight for the "idea" X, it only takes one idiot to taint the efforts of the other Y-1.

      Ditto by "PR image". I don't mean hiring a PR agency. But there is an "image" associated with that cause X, whatever that may be. To spread the word, you want people to think positively of it and the people advocating it. You don't want to offer the handwaved excuse of, basically, "bah, it's just a bunch of crazy asshats."

      To offer a better example, I remember when SCO started their attack on Linux. So a bunch of people started talking of DDOS-ing or hacking SCO. Not sure any more if anyone actually did, but that's irrelevant for what I'm trying to say. Those people didn't belong to any formal advocacy group, but their "cause" was "Linux." That's the kind of "cause" I'm talking about. Well, the reaction from virtually all advocacy groups was, basically, "please don't! We don't want people to associate Linux with that kind of thing."

      That's what I'm talking about, really. People are quick to build guilt by association and extrapolate from unrepresentative biased samples. To further your ideas, you don't want to give them that.

      And to get back to the topic, it's the same thing I'm saying about fighting against Scientology. It's a noble goal. Let's not taint it with asshattery.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    8. Re:Actually... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      E.g., what if one particular GM crop doesn't actually do whatever evils that guy imagines them to do?

      Well, the only "evil" I'm worried about when there are GM crops around my farmland, is...

      The evil that Monsanto will accuse me of attempting to "steal" their IP when their seeds blow onto my land.

      So, I would think that I'm completely justified in destroying my neighbor's Monsanto crops. Not that I'm a farmer. What point is it to have a good "PR image" if the judge can say, "regardless of wind patterns, you knowingly stole Monsanto's IP"??? None, in my book.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  22. Well I'm not going to leave you alone. by ze_nexus · · Score: 1

    I want you to get mad! I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!

  23. He faces a likely sentence? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    He should get a medal instead.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  24. Far more dangerous than Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now here is a cult I am much more scared of.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYEnDepMKwE

  25. OK does he accept donations ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    anyone can link to his website ? does it have a paypal button ?

  26. Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I think a brief timeline is in order for the purpose of clarifying exactly this guy's relationship to "Anonymous."

    Prank calls and DDoS attacks "for teh lulz" > realization that Scientology is indeed creepy enough to legitimately oppose > legal protests

    So the DDoS itself was probably not a part of the "Anonymous" coalition. It did, however, play a part in galvanizing the movement and generating media attention. But it was only after such events (shortly after) that the people watching who would become part of "Anonymous" started doing their research and getting interested. This guy may have had good intentions, but nothing can excuse such lawbreaking. After all, lawbreaking is the domain of the Church of Scientology, and we wouldn't want to step on their toes.

  27. That's our government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gotta love the intentionally vague wording of that law just so they can use it in any circumstance they don't like what you do with a computer.

    Kinda like when I got busted in school for doing something that wasn't explicitly against the computer use contract I signed, but they said I still violated it because they tacked on "This is not a complete list of rules." at the end so they can say anything they want was an offense. Fuckers.

    Oh, and I, for one, wish the server had exploded and taken a few of those scientolobastards with it. They're pure evil. Hey scientologists: what are YOUR fucking crimes? What are YOU hiding?

  28. Re:Anonymous Script Kiddies by meringuoid · · Score: 1, Funny
    Recently, we have the guy using cTunnel to access Palin's email account, when he could have easily used TOR and had essentially 0% chance of being caught, or if that's to hard, at least multiple web-based proxies.

    I never understood how he made that mistake. It's standard Anonymous procedure in such operations to be behind at least 7 proxies.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  29. Only thing he did wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only thing he should be charged with is not taking down more Scientology sites, and keeping them DDoS'd for longer.

  30. Re:Anonymous Script Kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bragging about it on the chans probably. The email dude got caught the same way, pasting screen caps in the chans. Thats where the feds got started.

  31. Felony is Overkill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be a civil suit, not a criminal one.

  32. I'm confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did he simply run a DoS script (like stacheldracht or wget) on his own computer, or did he use a botnet?
    In the first case, he shouldn't be liable. Imagine if a thousand people threw a can on the ground. They've put a whole ton of cans on the ground, to be sure; but you can't pick out one of them and blame him for throwing a thousand cans on the ground. In the first case, he's throwing one can and alone, he wouldn't have done any damage.
    In the second case, he shouldn't be prosecuted for DDoS, he should be prosecuted for taking control of howevermany computers he used for the DDoS. Right?

  33. Re:Anonymous Script Kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    7 proxies?

    that's over 8993 too few!

  34. The real shame is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of the people who make up Anonymous who peacefully protested will all now be tainted by this one deed. Now, Scientology will claim (and have been claiming) that all of Anonymous are criminals and terrorists. It only takes one rotton apple.

    1. Re:The real shame is... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      All of the people who make up Anonymous who peacefully protested will all now be tainted by this one deed. Now, Scientology will claim (and have been claiming) that all of Anonymous are criminals and terrorists. It only takes one rotton apple.

      You... really don't know Anonymous at all, do you? Read /b/ on 4chan for an hour or so, if you can bear it. That is Anonymous.

      Right now on the front page of that imageboard is a photograph of some girl and the challenge 'Count to 10 and I'll post the full set of her newds', a photograph of another girl and the question 'Would /b/ hit it?', a drawing of a gorilla and the challenge 'Write a proper haiku displaying your distaste for black people', two topless women and a request for porn site passwords, a comic strip of Sakura sucking off Gaara, an old copy-paste flame, two threads consisting of some guy fishing for approval of his looks, a whole thread in which people are just repeating the word 'wat', a nude of some girl on a sofa along with a request for porn, a thread about The Game (which you just lost by the way), someone asking for shock pics to set as someone's wallpaper as a prank, Ben Franklin for some bloody reason, and a thread requesting Rule 34 (that's porn in case you couldn't guess) of some character I don't recognise.

      In what possible way could Scientology slander these people?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:The real shame is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nothing. Check out http://freya.myvnc.com:9005/res/1086.jz
      It's a thread where a Anonymous is inciting other members of Anonymous to phone and harass a guy because the guy is gay.
      Here's another, older thread where they are calling for a raid against rape victims:
      http://freya.myvnc.com:9005/res/667.jz

      Anyone who gives a shit can keep easy tabs on Anonymous by browsing these three sites:

      http://freya.myvnc.com:9005/index.jz
      http://partyvan.info/index.php?title=Main_Page
      http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Main_Page

      Oh, and incidentally -you're describing 4chan; if you want to really revel in the depths of Anonymous' depravity, visit 12chan.org some time.

    3. Re:The real shame is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what possible way could Scientology slander these people?

      In other words, the cult's #1 tactic -- making up bullshit about its critics and seeing what sticks -- doesn't work very well. As you've figured out, slander and libel only work when the target has (a) a name against which to sling mud, and (b) a reputation to uphold.

      Just to clarify the rules, BTW. Rule 34 is only "There is porn of it. No exceptions." (In case of violation of Rule 34, Rule 35 applies. "Someone will make porn of it.")

      And you showed up on a pretty relaxed and friendly night. Lurk moar. You might enjoy it!

  35. Meh. by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Aside from the obvious fact that Scientology is a cult, I really wish they'd stop referring to fucking packet kiddies as 'hackers'. Most of them (and I'll bet this kid is no different) don't even fall in line with the definition of cracker or hacker. They're just children with buttons.

    1. Re:Meh. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      not hackers, hackers on steroids.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  36. Not Harsh Enough by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    5 years in a real prison is appropriate for this type of behavior. It's very disruptive and denies others their rights to communicate and to use the systems and connections that they are paying for.

    I can't stand Scientology at all. That said, vigilante censorship is just plain wrong. There is no excuse for this type of asshattery whatsoever. My position would be exactly the same if it were Scientology DDOS-ing him.

    Freedom of speech and religion don't just apply to popular speech and religions, they apply to everyone. It's great to argue against their points, expose their agendas, and debate. It's not okay to ever try to forcibly shut them down.

    1. Re:Not Harsh Enough by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      One of the only times there is an excuse for vigilantism is when the government refuses to do anything about a problem.

      I'm just wondering why people aren't DDoSing the KKK and White Power websites. Seems like far better targets for hacker vigilantism.

      That said, I believe prison time is an unreasonable punishment. And that it does not make sense to have DDoS be a felony. I would prefer that the problem was solved in civil courts. You waste people's bandwidth and disrupt their services, then you open yourself up to serious monetary consequences.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  37. Re:Anonymous Script Kiddies by mpe · · Score: 1

    I can't see how this guy got caught. If he was running a botnet over IRC, he should have been able to simply log in, issue commands for which target to attack, and disconnect. Or was he posting copy and paste scripts on the chans who then divulged his IP to the feds? Seems like the majority of Anonymous are idiots.

    It isn't that hard to find idiots even when it's a requirement they also be Islamic. Consider Nicky Riley, also known as "Mohammad Rashid Saeed-Alim".

  38. Re:Anonymous Script Kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Logging into an IRC server is a pretty good way to get caught. A single member of the botnet reveals the IP of the server, either through sniffing or disassembly, and then you just have to gain logs from the server, and you've got the guys IP address. Guess he didn't use Tor either.

  39. Re:Anonymous Script Kiddies by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 1

    In my experience with Anonymous, the ones who do the stupid shit are also typically the ones that enjoy bragging about it online.

    Posting non-Anon for karma bonus and also because I've got nothin' to hide. :3

    --
    ~ C.
  40. The cost of downtime by abigsmurf · · Score: 1
    How much money do you think it'd cost Amazon to have their servers down for 12 hours in terms of lost sales? $100,000's? $1,000,000's? What about ad supported content sites? I'd bet the time they're not receiving adviews is costly, not to mention the chance of potential readers being dissuaded from ever coming back.

    Blocking access to a website has pretty high costs, the examples I used where obvious examples of lost revenue but although sites with no obvious means of generating income may not be seen to be affected in any way other than inconvenience by downtime, they can still be effected indirectly, either from interested parties being turned away or from a bad reputation being gained.

    You know DDOS have ramifications far beyond simple "just a kid having some fun" when organised crime use it to extort money.

    1. Re:The cost of downtime by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      You're compairing the downtime costs of a rarely visited website for a cult with that of one of the biggest financial presences on the internet?... oooookay then, whatever you think proves your point I guess...

      And I'm not condoning his behavior... kids a moron. Key thing is this: KIDS ARE FUCKING MORONS! You don't put a kid in jail for it, that's stupid. You think putting him in prison is going to be an improvement to society? You think that a court case, fine, community service, and record of it isn't quite enough to get it into his head he screwed up big? Only way to drive the point home is to put him IN PRISON for a year and a half?

      I don't know if you've ever been to court before, maybe on a traffic ticket, or similar... you damn well know how serious an issue is while you're there. Damn near any real sentence and a firm warning would have done a crap load more good not only for the kid, but society as a whole. He's going to be a much more productive and useful person if you get his ass into college then if you throw him in with rapists and killers.

      Continue to argue your side if you want, but do you really think this kid for screwing off one weekend and doing something stupid which effected 1 website for a day or two is as bad as trying to solicit a 13 year old girl, or rigging an election, or forcing your daughter to stab her pet cat... because those were all about the same sentences he's going in for.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
  41. They're not even Internet-enabled by Animats · · Score: 1

    scientology is not a religion, it's a business. if you want to drive them out of business, compete with them.

    Scientology likes to pretend they are a religion, which holds them back. They're not keeping up with scientific progress. The "E-meter" measures skin resistance, the least useful component of a polygraph. By now, they should have some wireless, Bluetooth-enabled device that reads pulse, respiration, and, for tradition's sake, skin resistance. Someday brainwave monitoring might be added. If you have those measurements, you can read stress relatively well, especially once you have a baseline for the individual. This would allow "auditing" via the Internet. I wonder if Apple would allow a Scientology app for the iPhone.

    In other words, Scientology needs a hardware/software upgrade, and they can't do one because they're a "revealed religion".

    Another piece of software Scientology should have out is described in Hubbard's "How to Live though an Executive". This is a book on business organization, of all things. There's a whole communication system described, much like a trouble ticket system. It's basically a system to make sure that when something is ordered, it actually gets done. Successful completion is checked off within the system, but by third parties, not the ones doing the work, while trouble reports float upward. It's a bit rigid for use in some organizations, but it might be useful for, say, people running big equipment farms and networks. But it's 1940s technology, with forms and boards and hooks and rubber stamps and carbon copies. You'd think that Scientology would have this available as an online service. But no, they don't. As far as I know, they don't even use such a system in-house. Again, they've failed to keep up with the technology.

    Scientology has a "Religious Technology Center", but it's not an R&D operation. It's more like a cross between the RIAA and the Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the doctrine enforcement unit of the Vatican). They're stuck with Hubbard's technology: "With all Scientology churches bound to minister Dianetics and Scientology technologies in full compliance with their trademark licenses, the entire hierarchy up to the Church of Scientology International is self-correcting and ensures pure and orthodox Scientology. ... RTC investigates any departures from that standard administration and ensures that orthodoxy is restored."

    They do have competition, in a sense. There's the "est" - Forum - Landmark operation, which has been lightly brainwashing people since the 1970s. It's been called a cult, but it's more like Amway. There were more things like that back in the 1970s, but most of the people vulnerable to that sort of thing seem to have gone off to the Christian right, so the market for such cults is down.

    1. Re:They're not even Internet-enabled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientology likes to pretend they are a religion, which holds them back. They're not keeping up with scientific progress. The "E-meter" measures skin resistance, the least useful component of a polygraph. By now, they should have some wireless, Bluetooth-enabled device that reads pulse, respiration, and, for tradition's sake, skin resistance.

      That's what makes them such a lulzy target.

      They're held back by Elron Blubbard's notion that he was "Source". Hubbard controlled the cult by decreeing that everything he wrote was true, and that any after-the-fact interpretation of his writings was "out-tech" or "squirreling" (in cult jargon) and was therefore anathema. (kinda like that bigger fundamentalist religion that tries to kill anyone who translates the word of its God into any language other than the original, but even they allow people to interpret the word of their false God...)

      But I digress. The robotic obediance to "Source" (Hubbard's writings, and he's been dead for decades) is is why the cult still follows the 1960s-era policy letters that he wrote on how to deal with media attention: Trump up outrageous lies ("lurid blood sex stories", was the original phrasing, I believe) against critics and rely on 60s media to "tell both sides of the story". Accuse critics of "bigotry" (you can always spot the Scilon plant by its use of the Archie-bunker-generation word "bigot", and its comparison of critics to "Nazis", and the key phrase "hate group") and claim the mantle of religion. Etc. etc. etc.

      It's their achilles heel. Their own doctrines render them incapable of adapting to changes in the media environment such as the decentralization brought on by the Internet.

      The cult is the closest thing you'll get to a petri dish for memetic warfare. You can try any tactic you like against it -- and after a few weeks, you can be guaranteed that it won't adapt to your mistakes. It's not just hilarious, it's educational, in ways that are directly applicable to winning games involving marketing, propaganda, and politics.

      Some people have asked "Why this cult?", when there are so many other things (like that Phelps idiot, or neo-Nazis, or - wait, Anon did waste Hal Turner :) against which to troll?

      My answer is "Where better to learn how to play the game for higher stakes? Unlike the random fringe groups, the Scilon cult is big enough to be scary. But it's small and stupid enough to play with. Think of what a kitten does with its first mouse, while first learning to hunt."

      If there aren't already, in 10 years, there will be Anonymous holding elected office.

  42. if you were familiar with scientology tactics by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    such as fair game, you would consider it your moral duty to destroy scientology for being the freedom destroying fungal growth that it is

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  43. fair game by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)

    scientology standard operating procedure

    if we stomach the punishment of this guy for the ddos attack, in the name of fairness and morality, do we not destroy scientology for doing far worse on multiple occasions?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  44. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 - 1.5 years is a bit harsh. But I can't say I've _ever_ had a soft spot for script kiddies so I don't feel bad that some punishment is happening. But he did make the whole group of 'anon' protesters look foolish and criminal.

    Oh and I say this as a Scientologist, posted AC for obvious reasons - I don't think anyone has enough karma to admit to being a Scientologist on the internet.

  45. Re:Anonymous Script Kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're on Xenu's list and he's watching you.

  46. Re:Anonymous Script Kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course, if you want real protection, you should use a minimum of 9001 proxies.

  47. Anonymous my @55 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHAHAHAHA!!!

  48. Blah blah blah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No big surprise here, one of the /b/ fags (oh, sorry, the great "Anonymous") gets caught carrying out one of their juvenile pranks and bends over like a bitch. So much for your political message, eh /b/tards?

  49. How does this work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So...they arrest 1 person for a DDoS attack that was the work of how many?

    Exactly how does this work out? Anyone that stepped foot in the Channology IRC channel knew there were tens if not hundreds of people DDoSing scientology.org . There were tons of scripts written directly for that purpose...yet they arrest 1.

  50. OF COURSE ANON HAD CAEK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *not have cake

    You may be confusing Scientologists with GLaDOS.

    Well, you can't blame everyone for getting confused on these points. So let's set the record straight.

    On the 3/15 "Ides of March" raid in San Francisco, not only did Anonymous have cake, and it was not only delicious and moist, it even had "The cult is a lie. The cake is not." written on it, along with the obligatory mudkip. (Anonymous lieks mudkips.)

    O RLY? YA RLY.. There was even video, and it's not a rick roll.

    So - the Scilons tie the DDOS round. DDOS game ends tied at 1:1. One point for Anon for a successful DDOS and a huge storm of publicity, and the Cult gets a point for nailing one Anon to the wall for it.

    By my score, the running tally is around Anon 8, Scilons 2 (the Scilons only get half points for one Florida critic having "killed himself" under questionable circumstances in a jurisdiction where the Scilons have infiltrated the police department (Occupied Clearwater), and for the murder of Sean Carasov's cat (of course, the cat was also named Mudkips), because their part in those deaths can't be conclusively proven. As for Rorschach himself, the cult may have killed his cat, but they couldn't make their trumped-up charges stick in court. Anon 1, Scilons 0.5 on the Carasov game.)

    The games continue.

  51. Re:Anonymous Script Kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone have any info on how they tracked him down?

    Xenu texted the coordinate information to Tom Cruise.

  52. So you can do bad stuff if there's fine print? by TheLink · · Score: 1

    "As much as I hate DRM, if you didn't read the fine-print then that's your own fault."

    So I can write malware as long as it has fine-print that's similarly as accessible?

    I'm sure some malware authors will be very happy if that's all it takes to make it legal.

    Given the amount of people who click-through stuff (just to play that cool flash game etc), there'll be tons of legally installed rootkits and spam zombies :).

    If I were that evil, I'd be doing that then.

    Did Sony's CDs come with fine print? And did the fine print mention what would be impaired? If it did not then who went to jail for 12-18 months as a result of the Sony CD malware?

    --
  53. Re:FUCK SCIENTOLOGY by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 1

    This lands for me like most anti-other-culture polemic speech, particularly anti-other-religion. Religion in general has produced more hate than any other aspect of human culture. Even though war is all about money and power, it's religion that has supported war for those who don't stand to gain any money or power from the war, i.e., popular support.

    It's the old "us and them" argument writ large. Every human being has experienced some version of this, but it tends to die off without ritual reinforcement.

    I agree that clitoral "circumcision" (often the crude removal of the entire physical structure) is ridiculously cruel and occurs as unusual for anyone not steeped in that culture. There are examples of outrageous behaviour influenced and supported by every religion, though. It just so happens that this practice is one of, if not the most extreme instances.

    It's the very paradigm of anti-female behavior in the name of a deity.

    Compare and contrast the Hindus, who believe that more female orgasms imply a better world. Funny thing, this hasn't exempted them from turning to war; in fact, the very first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita is set on a battlefield.

    That is, I find it genuinely tragic that young women are deprived of pleasure from sex, almost certainly before they've experienced it. By comparison, the wholesale slaughter of human beings regardless of sex in war is pathetic. The high irony is that war is couched in metaphors which suggest honor, glory, and other high morality.

    --
    "Press to test."
    (click)
    "Release to detonate."
  54. Re:Anonymous Script Kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I remember correctly, he was bragging about it on IRC... Kid wanted credit, he got it.

  55. Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just lost the game.

  56. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is he facing jail time for breaking Rules 1 and 2?