Slashdot Mirror
Operation Payback and Hactivism 101
Orome1 writes "While individual acts of hacktivism are inconvenient, something else happens when hacktivists group together — they commonly perform a DDoS attack. Techniques have advanced to automate the process, making the attacks more powerful and thus more able to bypass security controls — the effect, however, remains the same. Let us take a look at the recent Operation Payback which has gained notoriety in the past few months."
Is it freedom of speech if you don't let the other guy talk?
The problem is this "hacktivism" is doing far more damage than good because it easily allows the politicians to say "We need an internet kill switch". The overwhelming majority of people don't give a damn about wikileaks one way or the other. It's a side show on the 24 hours infotainment channels, that's all. The main reason being that what Wikileaks is doing has little to no effect on people's daily lives. Especially when most are more concerned with the job/family/economy. Instead they see these "attacks" as nothing more than a group of vandals. Nothing more and when authorities want tougher laws to deal with these "vandals", the public shrugs and says...."alright".
And attacking the public facing websites...okay that may work with Amazon or Paypal. But to Mastercard or Visa? So long as I can still use my Visa Debit card or Mastercard at the gas pump or grocery store, it's not like I notice.
That being said, if they did target the processing systems of mastercard/visa, I'm pretty sure that would be the golden goose the politicians have been waiting for to really clamp down on control of the internet because then you are messing with people pocket books.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Dude, It's 4chan. Have you ever been on /b/?
Here is what happens: Anon comes in with a novelty idea, /b/tards join in "just for the lulz". Then, new Anon (oldfag Anon is a cold, merciless beast. newfag Anon is the conscious, moral, cause-oriented joke of the internet) puts a tag on it and says they are doing it for X. I mean, some said they did the Habbo raids to fight racism. They also said they did project chanology to protect the victims of Scientology. Bullshit, they did it for the lulz.
Of course, DDoSing, Raiding, IRL stalking, etc, are fucking funny, and if it happens to overlay with a good cause, even better. Let them have fun, and bring them down while they are at it.
But in this case, it's pretty obvious that Anon had nothing to do with Amazon Europe going down. Anon is nothing but a bunch of script kiddies, and they don't have the sophistication nor the combined bandwidth to bring down Amazon with a ddos attack.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
You know, for many of us, we simply don't care about this whiny distinction between "hacking and cracking".
It's stupid -- back in the day, you could hack some code, or you could hack into a system, or you could pull off a hack and hang a volkswagon from a bridge or make your calculator to something cool that nobody expect. We understood the difference between these things, and it was all one word.
You whiny kids who think you "own" the language and have to be telling everybody the "right" want to say it are just fooling yourselves. Even in the nerd community you think you represent, for many of us "hack" still means exactly what you claim it doesn't. Hell, 2600 has been around since the 80's, and it's always been hacker -- it's got a shitload more street cred than you kids who think that it's always been differentiated. Anybody under 40 who is saying anything about what is "hack" and what is "crack" is too fucking young to know what they're talking about.
It's all the same fucking thing -- "cracker" is a very recent word, and quite an arbitrary distinction which people tried to apply after the fact to make what they did sound less evil and dissociate itself from malicious break-in type stuff. Get over it.
Now, STFU, and get off my fucking lawn.
Completely accurate definition. Calling simple request swamping hacking, cracking, cyber-war or any other alarmist title is bullshit. Nobody is breaking into the systems, they are simply utilized beyond their capacity to serve, and that happens because enough people band together to cause the disruption... Witch is in turn caused by company's actions.
As advocates of Democracy and transparency, let's break the law and act in secret to take down big companies, which in turn hurts small businesses who use these payment services. Let's also inconvenience random shoppers. Let's create all kinds of random collateral damage to make a point about supporting transparency by supporting a completely secretive organization.
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
I was just at the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial and museum. One of the more interesting aspects of it was that the people motivated to bomb the federal building (and kill infants in the nursery) were upset at the government. They felt the most effective way to change the government was a terrorist attack. The two responsible were caught. One will serve life in prison while the other was executed. They didn't change government, but they did forfeit their lives.
Conversely, families of vicitms banded together, formed a group and went to Washington D.C. to ask for reform in how the death penalty is handled in federal cases. They felt the best way to support Democracy and affect change was to use Democracy itself.
That is such a novel concept.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Oh please.
100 people can sit in at a lunch counter, shutting down service, and it's considered activism and protest.
100,000 organized people could easily shut down 1,000 restaurants, or bank branches, or other retail storefronts by the same behavior. Again, activism and protest.
100-500,000 people can jam up the phone banks to Congressional offices and we call it a "Virtual March on Washington." And nobody suggests it doesn't qualify as activism and protest.
All of these count as activism. Yet when an unknown number of people voluntarily download an item to their computer to participate in a "virtual march" on the website of a bank, or the RIAA, or Paypal, or Scientology, somehow it's not activism?
The major difference is whether the participants are willing or unwilling. In the case of most botnet-based DDoS attacks, the participants are unwilling; their machines have been hijacked and often they don't even know they are participants. In the case of LOIC, they are all willing. They purposely downloaded and installed the software. They can leave it running or only turn it on at specific times. They can easily uninstall it if they believe it is being used in a way they don't support.
What is going on is not a "cyber attack." It is a virtual protest march.
"Freedom of speech involves freedom from retaliation. If you choose not to do business with them, that's great. But if you prevent others from doing business with them then you've crossed the line." Assuming that we're starting with a level playing field. Mastercard, Visa, Paypal, and Amazon are all able to buy Congressmen. Regular people can't. Our government is so corrupt at this point, there's really no recourse for regular people who have to go up against these corporations with more rights and privileges than actual people.
I don't respond to AC's.
Wait, wasn't there just a slashdot story showing how the pro-Wikileaks "hacktivists" can be easily identified? If so, it seems they actually are putting themselves at risk.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Isn't this true of any protest though, online or off? As soon as the protest becomes effective enough to actually have any real impact, measures will be taken by someone to put it to an end. The only protests that can be allowed are those which achieve nothing.