FBI Raids Texas ISP For Anonymous DDoS Info

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Raids Texas ISP For Anonymous DDoS Info

Posted by timothy on Friday December 31, 2010 @01:03AM from the now-turn-around-reeeeal-slow dept.

jcombel writes with this link to The Smoking Gun, which says "As part of an international criminal probe into computer attacks launched this month against perceived corporate enemies of WikiLeaks, the FBI has raided a Texas business and seized a computer server that investigators believe was used to launch a massive electronic attack on PayPal." Computerworld has a story, as well.

120 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Attacking financial services by devxo · 2010-12-31 01:04 · Score: 1

What could possibly go wrong?
1. Re:Attacking financial services by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 01:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What could possibly go wrong?
  Paypal: the "bank" that somehow gets away with not having to be regulated like a bank and treated like a bank, despite looking like a bank and acting like a bank.
  
  DDoS attacks suck but in this case, nothing of value was lost.
2. Re:Attacking financial services by ScentCone · 2010-12-31 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  despite looking like a bank and acting like a bank
  
  And despite not pretending to provide many of the services a bank provides, and not arranging to have the funds insured by the government, and despite you not having to have anything to do with them, whatsoever, if you don't feel like it.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
3. Re:Attacking financial services by Skapare · 2010-12-31 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  You mean there ARE banks which were are required to do business with (that PayPal is not one of)? And all regulated banks are required to provide every possible service (that PayPal does not provide all of because they are not one of those banks)? I guess maybe more banks should having funds insured by the government. That way they can get out of actually having to do things right, and be on a better footing to provide alternatives to PayPal.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
4. Re:Attacking financial services by ScentCone · 2010-12-31 06:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You mean there ARE banks which were are required to do business with
  
  No, I don't mean that and you know it. But if you want to do business with a bank that, for example, offers you FDIC protected checking accounts, then you looking for a different sort of service provider. PayPal isn't in that line of work.
  
  And, on your other comment ... you're confusing FDIC insurance and the accompanying regulations with being bailed out, which are completely different things.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
5. Re:Attacking financial services by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 14:23 · Score: 0
  
  Paypal is a bank in at least Europe and Australia that I know of. If you believe it should be one in the US, lobby to get the law changed. It's not Paypal's fault that you disagree with your legal system.
WH says DDOS is not a crime by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 01:09 · Score: 0

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/21/interview-with-cyber-security-czar-howard-schmidt.html
White House cyber-security coordinator Howard Schmidt:
"We've seen over time street protests in cities that shut down traffic, and this is not dissimilar in the online world. There may be a disruption for a short period of time, but the bottom line is we continue to work to make sure that the impact is minimal."
1. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by drinkypoo · 2010-12-31 01:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You have to get a license to legally make a street protest which shuts down traffic, in most places.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by Rakshasa+Taisab · 2010-12-31 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting... So would we need to apply for a license in the country the server is located, and/or in each participating country?
  
  --
  - These characters were randomly selected.
3. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  Pipes != street. Pipes are under the street and cannot be rerouted. Once they back up, only a plunger can start the data moving again. /me is an IT plumber.
4. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by BigSlowTarget · 2010-12-31 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  And each country that the traffic crosses over/under/through? That could be long list if you're geographically distributed. Actually maybe a network pro can tell me - could it be almost every country if it's very high traffic and load balancing starts routing things different directions to get to the end destination? I'm out of my field there.
5. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by SharpFang · 2010-12-31 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Only where the server is located.
  After all, protesters arriving from other countries to a protest don't need separate licenses.
  
  --
  45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
6. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  Usually it's the other way around.
7. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by JumperCable · 2010-12-31 02:35 · Score: 2
  
  WH says DDOS is not a crime
  I don't see that in either you quote or in the article.
  People who have plead guilty to DDOS attacks have done so under this law:
  Specifically 18 U.S.C. 1030 (a) (5) (A) (i), (B) (i).
  I would be curious to see this challenged in the case of a single person with a single machine. The efforts of a single individual is not enough to take down a server. In fact, odds are they don't have proof that any of the packets the individual sent even reached the server in question or had any effect on it.
8. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by drinkypoo · 2010-12-31 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  This is where the metaphor breaks down. The protesters arriving from other countries can only get there so fast and generally only by engaging in economic activity. If you engage in mass mobile protest any way other than on foot you're only patronizing the problem.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
9. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting... So would we need to apply for a license in the country the server is located, and/or in each participating country?
  If we didn't we would be invading their territory, no?
10. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by Hatta · 2010-12-31 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Which is an entirely obvious overreach of legitimate government authority. If you have to ask the government for permission to speak out against the government, you are not free. Any government that implements such a policy is nothing more than a bunch of thugs and deserves as much respect.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
11. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by ScentCone · 2010-12-31 05:28 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If you have to ask the government for permission to speak out against the government, you are not free
  
  Lucky for you, then, that you don't have to ask the government for permission to speak out against the government, right? On the other hand, it seems like a good idea to make arrangements with the people who are tasked with keeping the streets working and safe when you are setting out to prevent your fellow citizens from being able to use the streets they pay for. Or are you implying that the only way to speak out against the government is to prevent your fellow citizens from being able to use public property?
  
  Any government that implements such a policy is nothing more than a bunch of thugs and deserves as much respect.
  
  You've got it backwards. Any protester who thinks he has to forcibly prevent other people from using the street because otherwise he doesn't think he can express himself is a thug who should be treated as such.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
12. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by jftitan · 2010-12-31 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  No your actually right. Thats why networks are supposed to have redundancy and distributed network connections. If one fails a backup is in place to re-route traffic to its end point destination.
  The problem that is clear in this case is that there is in no way shape or form in creating a "DDoS protest" license for any particular situation because of the mass complexity of the internet. I've in some cases tested connection routes for businesses and discovered that in some cases packets go through routes out of state then back into state, then BACK out of state before reaching its destination. Its really messed up how routing happens. Thats why we have network protocols that are designed to handle this type of scenario.
  Its funny how DDoS has come about over the past 10 years. I almost feel like it was yesterday when I first heard of DDoS attacks, and yet today our network infrastructure hasn't improved to deal with these DDoS attacks any better than they were handled 10 years ago. One company I contracted for, our only solution was to just unplug the server until all the attack stopped. Of course employees still couldn't use the internet because the attacks were still running, but at least the server wasn't melting.
  I think that is one of the reasons why Load Balancing came about, so that Slashdot/Digg/4Chan/Reddit bombardments could be handled better. LoL
  
  --
  "Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
13. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by retardpicnic · 2010-12-31 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  As always, the absence of facts has certainly not stopped you from forming a strong opinion.
  http://www.osce.org/publications/odihr/2007/03/23835_823_en.pdf
  Both the State, and the individual have obligations in this matter.
  Secondly, someone exercising freedom of Assembly is not always a protester, but of course, this would involve seeing someone else's point of view
  
  --
  sig loading.......
14. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by ScentCone · 2010-12-31 07:04 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Secondly, someone exercising freedom of Assembly is not always a protester, but of course, this would involve seeing someone else's point of view.
  
  The fact that you are blocking a public street without making any prior arrangements to do so isn't a "point of view" thing - it's a simple are you, or aren't you doing it sort of thing.
  
  As for linking to a Polish document about freedom of assembly? Who has said anything about interfering with freedom of assembly? The US has done more to protect and promote freedom of assembly than any other state in the history of humanity. That has nothing whatsoever to do with physically preventing fellow citizens from using the streets that serve their homes, businesses, and public services/venues.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
15. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  You're right--free speech zones really do protect my freedom of assembly.
  Please line up against the wall for the firing squad when the revolution comes. We'll get to you after we're done with the lawyers.
16. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 14:58 · Score: 0
  
  Criminal liability. If you're robbing a bank and someone has a heart attack and dies, it's murder. If you and a thousand of your buddies each stab someone with a push-pin, and he dies from the resulting collection of injuries, you're all responsible for his murder.
  Unless of course you want to believe that a server request using a tool designed to DDoS servers, with the message "good night paypal", and deliberately not using the functional aspects of the service provided on that server, using the banner "Operation Avenge Assange" is somehow an honest mistake because thousands of other people just happened to do exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, despite the fact that it was organised, and announced as a deliberate attack with a political motive.
17. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by ScentCone · 2010-12-31 15:33 · Score: 0
  
  free speech zones really do protect my freedom of asse
  
  No, they protect the free speech and assembly rights of the people holding the event. Want freedom to block the street, and not have your event overrun by people who want to shout you down? Just do the same thing they did, and get a permit to use the street. At which point, the very same cops and emergency responders who are making sure the people you hate are allowed to have their event won't be allowed to trash your event when you have one.
  
  Of course, you don't care. I'm guessing that you're the type that thinks that only your point of view deserves any consideration, right? You sound like a big Che Guevara fan. He had it right. No need for rule of law, trials and evidence and whatnot - people who don't agree with the people who shout the loudest and are the most willing to burn businesses just get shot.
  
  If you don't understand why people holding a large event should be allowed to assemble and speak without having to fight off punks determined to shout them down, then you don't understand why you should be able to do it, and benefit from the same protections, either.
  
  Though I suspect that your idea of speech and assembly doesn't involve speaking, or peacefully assembling, right? Man, it sucks when you aren't allowed to torch cars in the middle of someone else's political rally, doesn't it? Bummer. Nobody should have first amendment rights but you, huh?
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
18. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by wkcole · 2010-12-31 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Your title is a lie. In the article you link, Schmidt says absolutely nothing of the sort.
  
  White House cyber-security coordinator Howard Schmidt:
  "We've seen over time street protests in cities that shut down traffic, and this is not dissimilar in the online world. There may be a disruption for a short period of time, but the bottom line is we continue to work to make sure that the impact is minimal."
  People get arrested, tried, and convicted of criminal offenses committed as part of street protests. That statement means nothing like "DDOS is not a crime" but rather something more like "We will handle these protestors as harshly as we've handled G20 protestors since Seattle."
19. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by Requiem18th · 2010-12-31 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  My goodness astroturf is high!
  I love this do whatever you want as long as I don't have to barely take notice of it attitude that is the source of American freedom and democracy, keep it up, you are doing great, your country is more and more free every year so you are *obviously* doing something good!
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
20. Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime by ScentCone · 2011-01-01 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Astroturf, really? How does my comment in any way take a side? It applies to everyone, regardless of their political/idealogical leanings. Everyone who goes to the trouble to organize an event large enough to require some consideration about the use of public streets, and who goes to the trouble and expense of working with public safety officials (who have to route traffic around that location, provide sanitation facitilities, and everything else) deserves the opportunity to hold their event. This applies to everyone.
  
  You, on the other hand, appear to favor mob rule, and think that free speech is owned by whoever can shout the loudest or perhaps burn a car in the path of someone else's demonstration. Yeah, you love freedom, I can tell. I'm sure you also think that having your fellow demonstrators smash store windows somehow makes you look more mature and thoughtful, too, right?
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Idiots by Mad-Mage1 · 2010-12-31 01:13 · Score: 5, Informative

It was a bloody IRC server that's all. It was used by LOIC to get targets, etc...
I'm sure they were scraping and recording all of the chat logs from each IRC channel that was used, and THOSE logs are the ones with the money info, like who was participating, or at least their IP at the time. Snatching the IRC servers themselves is relatively useless.

--
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
1. Re:Idiots by devxo · 2010-12-31 01:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I haven't been to their network, but somehow I think it's one of those ircd's that hide user ip. Since they snatched the irc servers, they also got the masking keys and can now unmask all the ip's. Without getting the servers it wouldn't had been possible. Besides, there's probably more info and evidence on the servers.
2. Re:Idiots by Threni · 2010-12-31 01:31 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Sure, it's a punishment. "If you allow this sort of thing, we're going to take your servers and hang onto them for months".
3. Re:Idiots by Tynin · 2010-12-31 01:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I agree with you. As a former ISP employee, it is pretty well known that the FBI has electronic taps into most ISP companies. I assume the same would be true for datacenter operations as well. I have to imagine watching the traffic silently would have yielded more info than shutting down servers and taking them in for review. No need to worry about masking keys when you can watch the raw traffic come in and see who the major actors are.
  
  But more than that, why raid a datacenter? Why not work with the datacenter to get what they need and minimize an outage for any other custemers. It is like the FBI treats datacenters and ISP's as bad actors and doesn't trust that they aren't in on the crime which I think is rather outrageous.
4. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  This story shows up quite easily with a quick search. Did a similar cursory search on Google for news of FBI raids on people behind DDOS attacks on human rights groups. [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/22/2227206/Study-Finds-DDoS-Attacks-Threaten-Human-Rights] Nothing relevant seems to show up. Strange how that works.
  Not bothering to look for investigations of who's behind the DDOS attacks against Wikileaks.
  One thing's for sure: If Wikileaks has also been trying to make the point that governments take orders from and act on behalf of large corporations, they've done a great job of getting everyone to demonstrate it for them.
5. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Banks pay them well. They get even higher priority than mafiaa's.. Need I say more ?
  -Deepone
6. Re:Idiots by AHuxley · 2010-12-31 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  You would expect a new fed 'friend' or person the feds caught in the past to slowly befriend the admin/best new useful friend over time. Then work out ip's over a day/weeks when offered/gifted admin pw, raids for all... or long term tracking?
  I guess now its all about the wider chilling message, any IP range used gets a van. They have big trucks too ...
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
7. Re:Idiots by cheekyjohnson · 2010-12-31 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  governments take orders from and act on behalf of large corporations
  I thought everyone knew this...
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
8. Re:Idiots by Larryish · 2010-12-31 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  It would be nice if anonops irc wouldn't autoban proxies/tor.
  "Welcome to irc.anonops.co.uk - We are Anonymous, expect us. - Anonymous proxy servers are not permitted."
  Does that scan?
9. Re:Idiots by tagno25 · 2010-12-31 02:22 · Score: 2
  
  They ban proxies so that you are not DDOSing the proxy or killing ALL of tor.
10. Re:Idiots by Miros · 2010-12-31 02:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  To discourage others from operating infrastructure that can aid in DDoS attacks? This kind of high visibility move tends to invoke certain emotions among people who might be otherwise inclined to assist in some criminal enterprise. Whoever owned that server is probably not having a good week right now, and it's clear that simply operating some seemingly benign infrastructure that aids in a conspiracy to commit a crime is something that can get your equipment seized and your ass in hot water.
11. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  What this guy said. If theres any sort of firewall logging or anything going on, all of their ips are compromised. If you were part of the attack on any of these sites, I'd be crying to mommy about how you're just a dumb script kiddie and didn't know what you were doing.. if I were you... before the police show up and inform hetr for you.
12. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe the problem is that federal computer laws only apply to computers used by the federal government, financial institutions, and interstate commerce (pesky constitution and all that).
13. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  This kind of high visibility move tends to invoke certain emotions among people who might be otherwise inclined to assist in some criminal enterprise.
  And it invokes righteous anger in innocent observers. This could be an unmonitored message board or blog in the future. "Anonymous used your 'Look at my dog' website for planning. You're coming with us for questioning"
14. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  And when I find evidence of a crime being committed on my equipment
  - Report it to the FBI so they can come and steal my servers and shut down my company
  - Quietly fire the employee involved and destroy the evidence
  Decisions, decisions...
15. Re:Idiots by Culture20 · 2010-12-31 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  You would expect a new fed 'friend' or person the feds caught in the past to slowly befriend the admin/best new useful friend over time. Then work out ip's over a day/weeks when offered/gifted admin pw, raids for all... or long term tracking?
  What mildly competent sysadmin hands out root passwords as gifts? They haven't even done that in Universities since the early 90's.
16. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  A sysadmin who hands out root passwords for VPS? ;-)
17. Re:Idiots by Telecommando · 2010-12-31 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, give them a break.
  The FBI is just doing its job: ensuring that government of the money, by the money and for the money, shall not perish from this earth.
  
  --
  Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
18. Re:Idiots by AHuxley · 2010-12-31 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Long term flattery, shared interests, an understanding of Unix ect. could charm admins into that zone of pw trust.
  If caught in the past by the feds, you would have the time, cash and drive to work hard on/for your target group.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
19. Re:Idiots by Kagato · 2010-12-31 03:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I have to disagree about the taps.
  I've worked in VERY large national ISPs and local ISPs. At the large ISPs we dealt with dozens of warrants daily. If need be engineering would work with them as a partner to get what they needed. We were also allowed to push back if the warrant wasn't in order.
  At the small ISP the FBI would just show up and seize stuff. Often before hand they would call peers and dig up background information on the employees and owners. When dealing with small ISPs the FBI starts with the assumption that the company is in on it. You'll enjoy a reputation tarnished in the local community and threats of having all your equipment seized (putting you out of business).
20. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  - Go to jail for obstruction of justice when the FBI does eventually find out and asks where the evidence went.
21. Re:Idiots by Hatta · 2010-12-31 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  All of which amounts to the government bullying legitimate businesses for doing nothing illegal. How is this even close to acceptable?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
22. Re:Idiots by je+ne+sais+quoi · 2010-12-31 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, in this case the servers are evidence, and the FBI has every right to confiscate it. This happens all the time in hacking cases. Think about what would happen if the FBI didn't confiscate evidence -- it would be trivially easy to conduct illegal behavior because your provider would not give up the evidence necessary to convict you.
  
  It sucks, but that's what you get for having a society that actually investigates crimes against members of society. You can move to Somalia if you want a more laissez-faire style society.
  
  --
  Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
23. Re:Idiots by je+ne+sais+quoi · 2010-12-31 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  Excuse me, but have worked at a small ISP? How do you know that the FBI didn't ask ahead time to obtain the info. and only when the ISP refused to cooperate did they didn't start confiscating things?
  
  --
  Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
24. Re:Idiots by LordLimecat · 2010-12-31 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  "if you are involved in criminal activity, you may be involved in a lengthy investigation".
  Sounds fair to me.
25. Re:Idiots by ScentCone · 2010-12-31 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  doing nothing illegal
  
  Which definition of "DDoS" are you using, here?
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
26. Re:Idiots by Opportunist · 2010-12-31 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yeah, but so far it's been close to a conspiracy theory. What was lacking was proof.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
27. Re:Idiots by Hatta · 2010-12-31 06:57 · Score: 2
  
  Read a little harder and figure out who is doing the DDOS here and who got raided by the FBI.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
28. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  By all means. Why go through the bother of due process to deprive someone of their property when you can just seize at as part of an "investigation"?
29. Re:Idiots by sgt_doom · 2010-12-31 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, ADVAPI.DLL from Microsoft and Apple, and who knows who else, Narus boxes at the nation's switching centers and IXPs, it's definitely a done deal!
30. Re:Idiots by sgt_doom · 2010-12-31 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  What did that guy do a few years back? Put a link to some supposed porn or super-model site, but instead the underlying link was to the FBI HQ, which implemented an undercover DDoS attack? Sure hope nobody else copycats that!
31. Re:Idiots by hldn · 2010-12-31 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  good luck, i'm behind seven proxies.
  
  --
  http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
32. Re:Idiots by LordLimecat · 2010-12-31 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I checked, investigation was a part of due process, especially when it involves a court order or warrant.
33. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  good luck, i'm behind seven proxies.
  Your latency must suck....
34. Re:Idiots by HiThere · 2010-12-31 07:58 · Score: 2
  
  I really doubt that they would agree to something likely to put them out of business unless they were coerced.
  I haven't been following things, but my presumptions are:
  1) the business is (essentially) innocent
  2) there was no warrant
  3) The FBI used "main force"
  4) They'll get away with it again
  Will they find evidence? Maybe. Did they shut down the business? Almost certainly.
  That said, these are initial presumptions. Some comments have caused me to believe that this time the FBI didn't seize servers that will actually put the company out of business. But I've heard of no evidence of a warrant, so I'm assuming that they've acted as they did in a few other cases that I've heard of.
  The actions of the FBI that I've heard of do not indicate that they are very interested in protecting the rights of the accused. And also that if they doubt that they'll be able to get enough evidence to convict their target, that they are willing to use extra-legal means to cause them severe financial damage. In one case where I'm personally aware, the (eventually) accused was able to get a decent pro-bono lawyer. (He couldn't hire one, because all his assets had been seized.) Last I heard he'd been fighting the charge for years. Not many pro-bono lawyers will support you through that. He's probably going to loose. Because he has expenses that he can no longer meet. But, I'll admit, this was the DEA not the FBI, so that poor evidence, even though it does shape the lens through which I read these stories. (The charge? He was a doctor charged with prescribing too much pain medication for cancer patients on welfare.)
  Perhaps I shouldn't think of the FBI the same way, but reports in the news show that they follow a similar pattern of behavior, so I think that it *IS* fair.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
35. Re:Idiots by Threni · 2010-12-31 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  > Last time I checked, investigation was a part of due process, especially when it involves a court order or warrant.
  That's a little disingenuous. If you can't investigate without depriving someone of a server for months, then the investigation shouldn't be allowed, in my opinion, otherwise people will do just that - punish under the guise of an investigation. Take an image or whatever - whatever you can do in 24 hours or whatever is deemed fair.
36. Re:Idiots by ScentCone · 2010-12-31 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  When you provide the physical infrastructure that is used to perform or coordinate that DDoS attack, you really can't complain that the people tasked with investigating the crime are going to need to lay hands on the system and data in question, intact. ISPs and hosting facilities especially, because the next attack could be on something they're, themselves, trying to keep on the air as it's being attacked.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
37. Re:Idiots by warrigal · 2010-12-31 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  How long have Apple been using .dll files? I thought they were Windows-only.
38. Re:Idiots by innerweb · 2010-12-31 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone is missing the real problem here. The evidence in any digital (online, server, ...) case is the DATA. The hardware is almost useless. You might need things like MAC addresses and such, but the real stuff is the data. So, confiscating hardware is NOT needed. Confiscating DATA is what is needed. And the beauty of data is it copies so easily. So, the servers are evidence is uneducated BS. It always has and always will be. The data is the evidence.
  If they need the hardware for hairs, fingerprints and such, then the data can always be copied to a temporary server so the business and other innocent users can continue. Once the business is proven illegal, shut the business down. Until then, it is not proven to be in violation of the law. This is one of our most cherished rights. (like Miranda rights used to be [RIP]).
  Please don't tell me the FBI, or law enforcement in general can not copy data to a new server. If they are that inept, they have no place dealing with cyber-crimes.
  
  --
  Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
39. Re:Idiots by Legion303 · 2010-12-31 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  "Excuse me, but have worked at a small ISP?"
  The answer to that question is in the text of the post you responded to. I'm not sure why you didn't bother reading it.
40. Re:Idiots by wkcole · 2010-12-31 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  But more than that, why raid a datacenter? Why not work with the datacenter to get what they need and minimize an outage for any other custemers. It is like the FBI treats datacenters and ISP's as bad actors and doesn't trust that they aren't in on the crime which I think is rather outrageous.
  Working quietly with an ISP and/or DC fails in the primary goal of this sort of raid: being outrageous enough to get media attention. The major tool of law enforcement in a situation like this is fear. They know that "Operation Payback" isn't like a spamming or commercial extortion bot net, in that it is not controlled by anyone in a technical sense. That makes it essentially impossible to take out by taking a few machines sitting in DC's hosting IRC channels or even by taking over those machines and watching the traffic. Operation Payback is more a human network than it is a computer network, so law enforcement strategy has to be about scaring off the people rather than dismantling the technology.
41. Re:Idiots by wkcole · 2010-12-31 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  I really doubt that they would agree to something likely to put them out of business unless they were coerced.
  I haven't been following things, but my presumptions are:
  1) the business is (essentially) innocent
  2) there was no warrant
  3) The FBI used "main force"
  4) They'll get away with it again
  Will they find evidence? Maybe. Did they shut down the business? Almost certainly.
  That said, these are initial presumptions.
  In other words: you didn't even glance at anything besides the /. blurb. (hint: you are simply and objectively wrong.)
42. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 17:08 · Score: 0
  
  This involves a rather high publicity target for the "powers that be" - Assange.
  Given that a lot of IT folks lean libertarian, the FBI's concern that the admins might be in on it may be justified.
  Public opinion, outside of Fox News, is still in flux.
43. Re:Idiots by Requiem18th · 2010-12-31 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  Wasn't those sevan proxies?
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
44. Re:Idiots by Requiem18th · 2010-12-31 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  Let me investigate your computer, you can expect it back in... you know, I'll call you when they are ready.
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
45. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 19:53 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe they did refuse. If the FBI is making threats though then how can you possibly assume anything other then they are unethical pieces of shit who can't be trusted? The FBI needs a warrant and SHOULD ALWAYS have one before confiscating anything or even getting involved in monitoring data. No ISP should be harassed because they are protecting customers. Customers should be assumed innocent and the FBI needs to use the courts to obtain access. Never does that justify making threats on the owners of a business even if the FBI believes the owners are involved.
46. Re:Idiots by HiThere · 2011-01-01 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I was definitely wrong in certain ways. It sounds like they did have a warrant, e.g. And this time I didn't hear of anybody's door being broken down. As for the rest ... that still seems unproven.
  It is, however, true that I don't trust anyone who combines appointed authority with power. In fact, I'm suspicious of any centralized power. So I tend to read about action of the Feds with two strikes already against them. Even if they were honest this would make it difficult to satisfy me. Unfortunately, it looks quite often as if my initial presumptions end up being shown correct. This time ... at least many of them aren't, and some are still undecided. And it's also true that I tend to conflate the actions of the various arms of the federal government. Sometimes this causes me to be unreasonably suspicious. (Well, without "good" reason.)
  So it appears as if in this case the FBI has complied with the legal formalities. (This is not to say that I deem their actions good. I haven't decided that given that the legal formalities were followed their actions were just in this case. That one's quite tricky. With a lot of nasty edges.)
  Of course, it doesn't matter to them, or much of anyone, how I decide on this. I'm not an actor in this matter, merely a ... well, if it were a play, my role would be drama critic...for a really unimportant news flyer.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I wasn't around then, but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 01:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

I get the feeling we're about to see Weather Underground 2.0. FBI and friends rounding up subversives, cooking up various stories/evidence/results and both sides getting more and more serious until things go bad.
Anonymous will, I suggest, become the 21st century hippies once more and more tangential interests come aboard, and before you know it a few radical offshoot groups will take on the government in a serious way. Cyberthreats the like of government talk are bullshit, but people with technical knowhow and a bit of time can scuttle bureacracy gone bad, ala various leakings. I don't properly (beyond some scrapings of the history) know the who or what of 1969 onward and how right each side of the government-hippy fence was.. but I'm around for this fight, I'm a witnessing some disturbing trends that displease me greatly and can't say I side with the government being right.
In the cosmic irony department, the captcha for this post is "unfair".
1. Re:I wasn't around then, but.. by dreamchaser · 2010-12-31 01:50 · Score: 2
  
  Doubtful. The vast majority of Anonymous does what they do for the lulz, not out of any ideology.
2. Re:I wasn't around then, but.. by Bobakitoo · 2010-12-31 02:12 · Score: 2
  
  The "for the lulz" is part of the meme, just like using the word "Anonymous" as personal name. If the target was something they supported, they would not have participate. The target is picked carefuly out of a ideology and peoples supporting the cause join the DDoS. The reasoning behine is that moral equal bigotry, and if you cannot do something for an ideology, you can only do it for your own selfish entertainment (a.k.a. "for the lulz").
3. Re:I wasn't around then, but.. by HiThere · 2010-12-31 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  I don't believe the Weather Underground was ever a serious threat, except in their own minds, and in the press. When I looked around I saw dozens of easy targets that they just ignored. They were more publicity hounds than a revolutionary movement. AFAIK they didn't even have a platform of "What we would do if we were in charge".
  And if you say Anonymous will become the same kind of thing, I have no trouble accepting it. But consider what you are saying. (I.e., they're just about there already.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
4. Re:I wasn't around then, but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  Parent poster here
  Your description of the group meets the history I've come across about them. Like so many groups, it was for attention and not a rock solid longterm plan. To a point, you don't need a rock solid plan for how to make the world rosy. Culture jamming, public discrediting and whatever other technique used is never a compacted manifesto to be toward an endgoal so much as away from something in the status quo.
  The Anonymous-WUO connection in my mind isn't quite what the groups *consist of*, but how they're spoken of by authority and *perceived* by the public. No doubt they're already akin by the former - they use the shadow of the masses and have government agencies turning over rocks - but it's the latter "We'll hunt these bombing/cyber terrorists down, every last one" soundbite becoming widespread I'm waiting on. The label is already being put out there, and all that made up 'cyberthreat' FUD has been going on for years - perfect storm of public policy, allocated government funds and another headline to portray.
  Anonymous has issues with the odd nature of the meme being anybody/everyone/noone which the public doesn't get - the pieces of paper stuck to walls avoiding the name Anonymous, the V mask and additionally dealing with some mainstream issues could alleviate the problem. The businessman or fashion model or court judge who sees a colourful bit of paper during their commute may need 'gateway drug' pamphlets so to speak, about something day-to-day they understand before they pick up one regarding net neutrality or wikileaks.
  Would the non-tech folks of slashdotters read something about net neutrality off the bat?
Wul, Big Toot! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 01:35 · Score: 0

So what?
So the donut swilling swine may've found a handful of Anonymous.
It still doesn't mean they can find their ass with both hands and a road map in a lit room.
Well that leaves only about a Legion and some left to round up. Good luck with that!
I predict heavy work for the admin nursing the FBI site. Anonymous seem to be grumpy about details like that.
nice joe job, anonymous by circletimessquare · 2010-12-31 01:36 · Score: 2

use the fbi to do your dirty work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_job

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Paypal provided IRC server list? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 01:46 · Score: 0

From the article:
"On December 9, PayPal investigators provided FBI agents with eight IP addresses that were hosting an “Anonymous” Internet Relay Chat (IRC) site that was being used to organize denial of service attacks."
How did paypal manage to figure this out when the FBI couldn't? It's not like the IRC servers were attacking paypal directly
In the process of lying about the REAL source of of these 8 addresses (probably an illegal wire tap), the FBI managed to make themselves look incompetent, instead of just untrustworthy
1. Re:Paypal provided IRC server list? by jesseck · 2010-12-31 02:21 · Score: 2
  
  There's nothing that says PayPal couldn't have joined in with Anonymous and DDoS themselves... all it would take is a network admin to join the attack and watch the packets. All of a sudden, he becomes and "investigator"- making it sound like PayPal has their own black ops team, working hand-in-hand with the FBI. Of course, the FBI could do the same, or be wiretapping the data center without a warrant, and claim it was PayPal that gathered the info.
Well, technically... by ferongr · 2010-12-31 01:55 · Score: 2

... the server did not actually send those TCP requests, but was hosting an IRC server. The flooding software allows the user to turn his computer in a voluntary "botnet member". The software then connects to a specific IRC server (can be changed easily in case the server goes out of commission), connects to a specific channel and then a bot in this channel responds to commands by the software and passes the IP address of the target.
This allows the masterminds behind the attacks to coordinate the computers effectively and paralyze sites with an instant flood of requests, instead of having each user configuring the software with a new target I.P. and having the load on the target increase gradually, making it easier to react.
DOS Attacks by anonymous9991 · 2010-12-31 02:02 · Score: 0, Troll

DOS attacks can damage the economy and cost a people jobs and/or limit new job growth, these actions only hurt people. They belong behind bars.
1. Re:DOS Attacks by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  Doh-ho-ho-ho, you almost had me there.
  Apart from creating counter-measure and technical help jobs, when used on the large companys it forces people to use other services, spreading the wealth and creating even MORE jobs.
  If only they could DDoS Walmart stores.....
2. Re:DOS Attacks by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  If a DOS atack can hurt you you almost deserve to be hurt.
  One the other hand if you get hit by a DDOS there is almost nothing besides a CDN that can save you.
3. Re:DOS Attacks by tagno25 · 2010-12-31 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  If only they could DDoS Walmart stores.....
  Or China
4. Re:DOS Attacks by Bobakitoo · 2010-12-31 02:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Union strike and protest can also damage the economy. Let put all these peoples behind bars. Who the fuck they think they are? Damaging sort term profit of the all powerful corporations!
5. Re:DOS Attacks by Culture20 · 2010-12-31 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Doh-ho-ho-ho, you almost had me there.
  Apart from creating counter-measure and technical help jobs, when used on the large companys it forces people to use other services, spreading the wealth and creating even MORE jobs.
  Quick, amend the broken window fallacy! Throwing bricks through the windows of more efficient businesses create may create jobs, but does it actually generate more overall wealth?
6. Re:DOS Attacks by Hatta · 2010-12-31 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Squelching legitimate political demonstration can damage the economy and cost people jobs. If you care about the economy, preserve our freedom. These FBI agents belong behind bars.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
7. Re:DOS Attacks by el3mentary · 2010-12-31 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Union strike and protest can also damage the economy. Let put all these peoples behind bars. Who the fuck they think they are? Damaging sort term profit of the all powerful corporations!
  
  Sort term?
  
  --
  I reject your reality and substitute my own.
8. Re:DOS Attacks by HiThere · 2010-12-31 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  It might not generate more wealth, but perhaps it acts to redistribute it?
  It's not exactly a fallacy. (Actually, the original might be if I remembered it more fully, but this version isn't...exactly.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
9. Re:DOS Attacks by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  Well, I bet the grandparent also thinks that it is good to create work by having person A move stones from pile X to pile Y and letting person B move stones from pile Y to pile X! Wow, now we can create an infinite number of jobs! So why do we have unemployment when the solution is this simple?
10. Re:DOS Attacks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-02 19:29 · Score: 0
  
  behind bars? learn your history, we bury them when they get out of hand.
patriot by choko · 2010-12-31 02:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

So I'm assuming that we are going to see a probe by authorities into the "patriots" behind the wikileaks DDOS attacks next?
1. Re:patriot by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  That's assuming there is one, and Wikileaks isn't playing the victim of government conspiracies. We know this is a tactic Wikileaks will use because it's the same tactic Assange is using now.
  And that's also assuming Wikileaks have actually made an official complaint to the relevant authorities. We know the FBI won't be involved since Wikileaks have distanced themselves from any hosting, operation or legal liability in the US. In fact they've done this with pretty much every country except Sweden, and even then the exception is Assange who apparently thinks he isn't subject to Swedish law because he thinks their legal system is the greatest system in the world, or absolutely broken and invasive of human rights, depending on which laws he wants to follow.
  And then, that's assuming the authorities are going to care. Most likely they are going to tell Wikileaks to go fuck themselves. That's what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you. It's natural justice. Sorry, but you don't get to scream to the world about how corrupt the government is, then beg for that government to help you when somebody else does something you don't like. It's the same as the nutcases around here who believe every police officer is corrupt, racist, and only joined the police because of a mentality to thrive on and abuse power. Well if you believe that, you shouldn't get access to the police next time your're being mugged, assaulted or raped.
"Computer Server" ? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 02:40 · Score: 0

Shucks, paw, I goit meself one of dem Compooter Server wassits
"Computer Server". Sheesh - who writes this stuff?....
A few mistakes... by jornak · 2010-12-31 02:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

First mistake: They list the IP in the affadavit OUTSIDE of the logs twice as 72.9.153.42 instead of 72.9.153.142 as it should be. One could assume that they could have now raided the wrong server in Tailor Made's farm.
Second mistake: "root" is just an IRC nickname on AnonOPs, and this person does NOT have root access on the IRC server that was raid as falsely assumed in the affadavit. They have oper with override privileges, and that was what was logged. The raid on the server at Tailor Made Servers was made under false pretenses.
Third mistake: Those logs show... [Thu Dec 9 11:14:27 2010] - OVERRIDE: root(root@72.9.153.142) TOPIC #loic '!lazor default targethost=api.paypal.comsubsite=/ speed=3 threads=15 method=tcp wait=false random=true checked=false message=Good_night_paypal_Sweet_dreams_from_AnonOPs port=443 stop' ... if anyone here has looked at LOIC's topic parsing, there's two mistakes the FBI made there. The first is that there's no space between targethost=api.paypal.com and subsite=/. The second is that this person "root" is STOPPING the attacks by adding "stop" at the end of the topic. Unless they can show logs of this "root" person throwing "start" in the topic instead of stop, this person is doing exactly the opposite of "willingly and knowingly" executing commands to start a DDoS attack.
1. Re:A few mistakes... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  hahahahaha. you're right, but man i couldn't help but laugh at the futility of trying to explain code syntax as a defense.
2. Re:A few mistakes... by edgedmurasame · 2010-12-31 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Either an honest mistake, or as many mistakes there could be, a deliberate error to identify potential participants.
  
  --
  "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
3. Re:A few mistakes... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 03:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's usual government tactics mixed with incompetence, i.e. raid as many people as possible, with warrants that are based on wrong information. Most cops don't know what they are doing in regards to IT or knowingly use bad information to get warrants. Hundreds and thousands of raids look great in press releases and there are no consequences for doing a shitty/fraudulent job. They simply hide the fact that a tiny, tiny percentage of those raids actually result in convictions. The vast majority of cases are discontinued due to lack of evidence or because people get lawyers who tear the crap cops did to shreds.
  A great example is operation "Himmel" in Germany. Literally 1000s of raids all across Germany were started because some server contained child pornography and logs appeared to indicate LOTS of downloads. Turns out the majority of images were neither CP nor illegal. People ended up getting their homes raided by police because they only loaded a few thumbnails; not even full images. In the end not a single case out of these 1000s ended up in court. Yet police and politicians considered the operation to be a success and used it to inflate their case numbers to prove how important new internet laws are.
  It's not about convictions, it's about publicity for politicians and creating FUD for agencies.
4. Re:A few mistakes... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  The FBI is well within their rights to at least question someone that they have reasonable belief of possessing knowledge or information about a crime.
  There is obviously enough probable cause to go to a judge to ask him for permission to seize a server to find out who these people are on IRC and then compel them to testify to a grand jury about their activities and knowledge of said activities (if they didn't actively participate). Assuming of course they are in jurisdiction of a grand jury subpoena.
5. Re:A few mistakes... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  this person "root" is STOPPING the attacks by adding "stop" at the end of the topic. Unless they can show logs of this "root" person throwing "start" in the topic instead of stop, this person is doing exactly the opposite of "willingly and knowingly" executing commands to start a DDoS attack.
  Wouldn't that mean he is executing a DoS attack on the DDoS attack?
6. Re:A few mistakes... by HiThere · 2010-12-31 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it sounds like my initial presumption that they didn't bother to get a warrant was wrong.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
7. Re:A few mistakes... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  "root" is Canadian.
Except that.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 04:00 · Score: 0

...PayPal isn't a bank.
Isn't it amazing.. by Dynamoo · 2010-12-31 04:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Isn't it amazing that the FBI can get their arses into gear over Anonymous, while allowing thousands of other criminal operations to use US based servers without disturbance. I am constantly horrified by the number of malicious sites operating out of the mainland US that are clearly operating in plain sight.

--
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
1. Re:Isn't it amazing.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 05:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Money talks... Anon starting playing with fire when they went after the credit processing industry. Most malicious servers don't go out of their way to put a big target on their back. More importantly, they don't actively disrupt commerce, something that this government takes more seriously than just about anything else.
  
  Worth noting, this is the ONLY police action in the USA related to wikileaks, and it isn't really even related. What the hell does that say about all this?
2. Re:Isn't it amazing.. by Requiem18th · 2010-12-31 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  Welll but isn't it great that the FBI is prioritizing the investigation of the people who DDoSed Wikileaks? They are freedom fighters aren't they? They surely will protect the freedom of speech of an important outlet for corruption and abuses of power aren't they? Oops I was day dreaming that law enforcement actually cared about people and justice again.
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
They should use th3j35t3r's tool by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 04:24 · Score: 1, Interesting

Anonymous guys should google an implementation of slowloris-over-Tor "XerXeS" like Th3j35t3r uses... (Yeah implementations are out there, do you think th3j35t3r wrote his tool by himself??? LOL)
Going over Tor hides the IP and doing this attack via multiple machines would make them a really nasty bunch of fuckers.
On the other hand maybe they should not do that. You see, one can easily prevent the "XerXeS" tool by just tarpitting multiple connections from a single IP. Or, better yet, tarpit all Tor exit node IPs. Then to hide oneself, the attacker would need multiple machines, essentially a botnet.
As for the former alternative. If you don't have TARPIT support, run: module-assistant auto-install xtables-addons-source
Then run: iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --syn --dport 80 -m connlimit --connlimit-above 5 -j TARPIT
Latter option left as an exercise for the reader. Tweaking connlimit-above left as an exercise to the reader :)
Re:Idiots and War Criminals by sgt_doom · 2010-12-31 07:14 · Score: 1

I have been reading those SAR reports Wikileaked from Afghanistan, and there appears to be atrocity after atrocity after atrocity, supported by those very rare and occasional news stories (in the international media, as America has no media).
While a court-martial is taking place in America about those US Army thrill killers of innocents, an Australian Special Forces unit is undergoing a court-martial in Sydney -- having killed innocents, instead of the Taliban, due to "faulty intel" -- a commonly occurring event.
Polish soldiers in Afghanistan get hit with an IED, so they attack the nearest village, on the assumption the innocents there are the guilty party.
Meanwhile, we've noted that the USAF has obliterated how many Afghanistani wedding parties now (each one consisting of 70 to 90 plus people)?
War Criminal Obama, as with War Criminal Bush, hasn't pursued any of these war crimes and atrocities (excepting the one obvious one now involved in a court-martial at Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA.
Likewise, we observe the outrageious and humongous efforts (if only such efforts were ever expended to hunt down this Osama bin Laden fellow??????) to extradite Julian Assange of Wikileaks back to Gothenburg, Sweden, which just happens to be the location of Jeppesen Systems AB, a subsidiary of Boeing, and affiliated with Jeppesen Dataplan, better known as Boeing's Extreme Rendition Airlines --- how very convenient.
Also pertinent to this blog post, is that Narus, those pesky Narus boxes having been installed at switching centers and IXPs throughout North America as part of that "warrantless wiretapping"/T.I.A. criminal eavesdropping activities, is also owned by Boeing.
slackers by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 10:00 · Score: 0

HACK THE PLANET
Re:Atrocity by TaoPhoenix · 2010-12-31 11:04 · Score: 1

Atrocity Atrocity Atrocity Atrocity
Atrocity Atrocity Atrocity Atrocity
Come on!!! Who's With Me?
It's not just a meme, it's the description of how media control works.
Helpful Link to Tune for Singalong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE
Unfortunately I have no mix skillz.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Re:Idiots Do you remember? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 21:37 · Score: 0

Blackboxing is what is used. Do you remember Echelon? Then changed the code name to Magic Lantern? After the FBI got rumbled?
I have the source code for the lot and might just modify it to pull an rm/rf*.* of /var/logs GUTMAN overwrite. So good luck with that.
So what version of WindowZ by niftymitch · 2011-01-02 20:07 · Score: 0

Pray tell what version of Windows the box was running.
Or tell what software service was hacked by someone to a
bad end.
Does it get more interesting if the system involved
was a virtual machine running in such a way
that a backup picked up all the services and
law enforcement was unable to deny any further
services.

--
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.