Police Arrest Five Over Anonymous Attacks

nk497 writes "Five people have been arrested in the UK, accused of taking part in Anonymous' DDOS attacks in support of WikiLeaks. The five men — aged from 15 to 26 — are still being held by police for questioning. Met Police said the investigation was a collaborative effort between forces in the UK, EU and the US."

Comments

5 people..,

[Anonymous Coward]

.... a DDoS does not make :)

Re:5 people..,

[YrWrstNtmr]

1. If they run a botnet or two, yes it might
2. And where does it say these 5 were all of them?

Re:5 people..,

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on how many machines they had in their control as well as the available bandwidth from each point of origin. Technically, it only takes one person to create a DDoS. And a very effective one at that.

Re:5 people..,

[CharlyFoxtrot]

They're just kids. Counting the 16 year old they arrested in Holland this makes 6. It's disgusting, there are real crimes being committed out there and here the police are chasing down some misguided pranksters/activivsts.

Re:5 people..,

[RazzleFrog]

Tell the small mom and pop site that uses PayPal to do its business that losing a day or two of income is just a "prank" and not a serious crime.

Age doesn't determine the drawing line between crime and prank.

And there is more than one type of cop in the world. Some go after murderers, some go after embezzlers and some go after cybercriminals.

Re:5 people..,

[Chrisq]

Depends on how many machines they had in their control as well as the available bandwidth from each point of origin. Technically, it only takes one person to create a DDoS. And a very effective one at that.

Posting a link on slashdot often seems to do the job as well

Re:5 people..,

[serviscope_minor]

Tell the small mom and pop site that uses PayPal to do its business that losing a day or two of income is just a "prank" and not a serious crime.

Try telling wikileaks that the government pressuring businesses to censor because it would be illegal for them to do it directly is fine and not a serious breach of the constitution.

And there is more than one type of cop in the world. Some go after murderers, some go after embezzlers and some go after cybercriminals.

And yet none of them go after the real perpetrators, it would seem.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

oh the poooooor mom and pop stores.
perhaps they'll be more inclined to instead do buisness with companies which don't attract such... oh hey there's the point of the protest like any other.

any kind of protest will disrupt buisnesses in the local area or which rely on those which are being disrupted.
Think they don't?
tell that to the poor mom and pop store off a road blocked during any big protest.

Re:5 people..,

[RazzleFrog]

Doing business with what type of companies? Companies answer to shareholders and have to do what they feel is best for the company. You don't know what kind of pressure they received from the government and what impact NOT blocking wikileak payments would have had on them. People can be activists - publicly traded for-profit companies cannot.

Re:5 people..,

[TheReij]

And there is more than one type of cop in the world. Some go after murderers, some go after embezzlers and some go after cybercriminals.

Unfortunately they all get funneled through the same overworked legal system. So, even if there are separate people doing the investigating and arresting, the paperwork goes through the same channels amd the cases are heard by the same judges. Meanwhile, the perps are held in the same prisons, further taxing the system. It's all the same.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

Which is an argument which could be used for pretty much any deplorable act by any company.

Bopal? well they had to answer to shareholders(translation, make lots of money) and have to do what they feel is best for the company!
IBM helping a genocidal government?You don't know what kind of pressure they received !

etc etc etc

Re:5 people..,

[RazzleFrog]

Best for the company within the law obviously. What PayPal did was not outside the law and didn't kill anybody.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

well if it's work for the government then it's going to be considered as within the law by the government unless you get really unlucky and they want to shift the blame afterwards.

Great that as long as long as nobody is killed then anything is ok! right?

So I guess people also shouldn't protest about the warrentless wiretapping and the companies which helped and the government which afterwards declared the whole thing legal and gave the companies involved amnesty?

in the real world "oh we were able to make lots of money doing that" doesn't make all the protesters go away.

Re:5 people..,

[RazzleFrog]

People can protest all they want. Did I ever say they couldn't? There is a step between protest and attack, though.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

is getting a crowd of people together and sitting down blocking the entrance to a store an "attack"?

because that's pretty much what a DDoS in this context is.

Re:5 people..,

[sumdumass]

Try telling wikileaks that the government pressuring businesses to censor because it would be illegal for them to do it directly is fine and not a serious breach of the constitution.

Despite there being little to no evidence outside of innuendo wishful thinking of that ever happening, since when has it ever been a moral or legal right to commit a crime because someone that doesn't directly influence you committed one that didn't directly influence you?

Two wrongs don't make a Right. Three rights make a left however.

And yet none of them go after the real perpetrators, it would seem.

Maybe this is only perception and the level of stupidity associated with the crime. You see, most organized (or otherwise) criminals don't want their name associated with a crime nor do they want publicity about the crime. This is especially true if they want to repeat the offense.Some do, and they get caught. So they take steps to hide the entire fact that a crime has happened in the first place in order to be able to commit the crime again and again. What happened here is sort of a complete reversal. These idiots wanted the publicity because it served their purpose. So obviously, when you depart from the entire, I hope no one ever finds out about this line and go with the I hope everyone see this, you are going to attract more eyes to looking for who is behind it and hence more arrests and accusations to the more publicly known crimes.

Re:5 people..,

[Opportunist]

Tell the small mom and pop site that relying on a single money transfer provider is asking for trouble.

Call it a learning experience. Don't rely on a single point of failure.

Re:5 people..,

[sumdumass]

Companies answer to shareholders and have to do what they feel is best for the company. You don't know what kind of pressure they received from the government and what impact NOT blocking wikileak payments would have had on them.

Actually, we do know what impact it could have on these companies. It's illegal to do business with criminals or criminal organizations when your business with them enables or conceals the criminal activity. This has been part of the standard organized crime legislation for years. So as soon as government officials started claiming Wikileak's actions violated US law, Whether they prosecuted or not, those companies had to evaluate if their business with them was in violation of the law or not. And seeing how most of the business done with wikileaks is done to the extend of allowing them to continue to operate in the ways the illegality was claimed, they were exposed to prosecution too.

Seriously, why resort to guessing what people are thinking and trying to assume it's the worse when you can just look at the laws already on the books. In the least, the US could prosecute companies who's business allows the claimed criminal activity to continue and even if they didn't prosecute wikileaks, those companies would have to prove that either their business didn't allow the activity to continue or prove wikileaks wasn't repeatedly violating the law. Either way, it's a lose lose situation for them.

Re:5 people..,

[RazzleFrog]

Yes it is and those people would most likely be arrested.

Re:5 people..,

[WrongSizeGlass]

What happened here is sort of a complete reversal. These idiots wanted the publicity because it served their purpose.

Um, are you still talking about 'Anonymous' or is that a reference to the 2010 'Media Whore of the Year' winner, Julian Assange?

Re:5 people..,

[sumdumass]

So I guess people also shouldn't protest about the warrentless wiretapping and the companies which helped and the government which afterwards declared the whole thing legal and gave the companies involved amnesty?

in the real world "oh we were able to make lots of money doing that" doesn't make all the protesters go away.

It also doesn't make the protesters accurate or informed. The telco's already had immunity from prosecution as the government always presented them a valid authority for the taps. The amnesty came in when protesters were trying to hook a loophole to get rich off the telcos by saying that even though the government pretended to have the lawful right and authority for the wire taps, because they lied, the telcos don't get immunity any more. It wasn't the telco's responsibility or duty under the then existing law to do anything but comply with a government request if it was presented according to existing statute. And in case you are wondering, that means presented with papers stating a legal authority either by warrant or one of the various means a warrant wasn't necessary exists and they had a right to the information sought. It doesn't mean whether or not those papers or means were legal or illegal.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

Isn't the line: "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

if the telcos broke the law and opened themselves up to liability, even through what you call a loophole (ie the laws actually working) then they should have known they were exposing themselves as such.
They're the ones with the legal teams after all.

So they did something illegal(after someone, apparently without the authority to make it legal told them it was legal) at the governments request and then the government not only covered it's own ass but theirs as well.
That damn well does deserve protests.

Re:5 people..,

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded up I thought that /. hated the whole "Think of the children" trite

Re:5 people..,

[jdgeorge]

But the 5 were all "men". They can't catch the hordes of canny techno-geek women involved in this internet mayhem, huh?

Re:5 people..,

[strength_of_10_men]

and some go after cybercriminals.

So I assume that the "collaborative effort between forces in the UK, EU and the US" is also searching for the people behind the DDoS attacks on the Wikileaks site.

Right? Right? [crickets...]

Re:5 people..,

[sumdumass]

lol.. I guess it could be both.

Anonymous picked very highly public targets and bragged about doing so for obvious reasons. The also came out claiming they don't exist and blah blah blah- hence the name. They were actively recruiting and doing a number of things like providing tools to participate in the public lashing of these companies.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

since when has it ever been a moral or legal right to commit a crime because someone that doesn't directly influence you committed one that didn't directly influence you?

a great deal of the civil rights movement involved people commiting acts of civil disobedience (read: crimes) to protest things involving people they'd never met doing things to other people they'd never met.

Re:5 people..,

[sumdumass]

Isn't the line: "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

if the telcos broke the law and opened themselves up to liability, even through what you call a loophole (ie the laws actually working) then they should have known they were exposing themselves as such.
They're the ones with the legal teams after all.

Well, no. There was no ignorance of the law. The law clearly stated that when the government or it's authorized representative request assistance, they wouldn't be liable for the assistance provided. The loophole isn't actually a loophole as it was never tested in court. That's what the immunity intended to do- shut down the possibility of it actually working as was the intent and purposed of the original law.

The telcos did not break the law. They provided the access and technical services they were required to by law. The government broke the law (or so it's claimed) and used the telcos and existing laws to do so. Punishing the telcos for following the laws they are required to follow simply does not make sense when the violation was someone else'. The loophole didn't actualy exist, it was a ploy to harass the telcos by costing them money and discover information about the government's actions.

So they did something illegal(after someone, apparently without the authority to make it legal told them it was legal) at the governments request and then the government not only covered it's own ass but theirs as well.
That damn well does deserve protests.

No!. What part of this is so hard for you to understand? The only way the telcos did anything illegal is if the government came to them and said "we aren't allowed to do this, but will you let us anyways". If the government presented anything stating they had the authority, the telcos were absolved from any liability or prosecution because the law said specifically that they had to provide access and assistance to them. And the government did claim to have the authority to do it.

Fuck man. You are looking really hard to be pissed at something but you can't even get your facts straight when it's laid out right in front of you. I suggest you sit back and take a deep breath before even thinking about proceeding. The telcos did nothing illegal because they were required by law to give access and technical assistance to any valid government request. And the word valid does not have anything to do with the government being legal or not, it has to do with the paperwork presented to them.

You are trying to turn this into a cop in the middle of the intersection directing traffic and getting pissed off because the damn cars that passed through on the red light at the cops direction weren't cited for running a red light. That's how obviously wrong holding the telcos responsible and claiming they violated the law is.

Re:5 people..,

[nfc_Death]

So your claim is; I can make an allegation of criminal wrongdoing against any company or person I want, and that should create a situation where their partners will no longer do business with them, their financial institutions will withhold their funds, and their leaders will be subject to political scrutiny? Furthermore according to your comment, all international businesses associated with said company/person will imagine themselves to be under random foreign criminal law and cease business operations with the aforementioned? Allegations are allegations, were charges filed? Do we see a criminal case proceeding against wikileaks proper? Status Quo is dead you chump, big government knows it and you are an apologist for evil men.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

"Well, no. There was no ignorance of the law. The law clearly stated that when the government or it's authorized representative request assistance, they wouldn't be liable for the assistance provided.

riiiight.
They weren't breaking the law yet it still still required that they *change* the law to make it so that they weren't breaking the law.

"They provided the access and technical services they were required to by law. The government broke the law (or so it's claimed) and used the telcos and existing laws to do so. "

So they didn't break the law... yet they needed a change to the law and an amnesty to make it so that they weren't breaking the law.
that's called breaking the law.

"The loophole didn't actualy exist"

ok, so this "loophole" which required an amnesty and a change to the law to close not only didn't actually mean they were breaking the law but it also didn't exist. they just changed the law and declared the amnesty for fun.

"If the government presented anything stating they had the authority, the telcos were absolved from any liability or prosecution because the law said specifically that they had to provide access and assistance to them. And the government did claim to have the authority to do it."

Still, going only on your own statements here.
So they didn't do anything wrong yet they required a change to the law and an amnesty to protect them from prosecution for certainly not breaking the law due to a loophole in the law which didn't exist.
great. good we've got that settled.

I'm genuinely curious now, this loophole (which didn't exist) which required a change of the law and an amnesty to protect the companies which didn't need protecting: how, exactly, did it fail to prevent people suing the telcos for helping the government to violate their constitutional rights in this case?

Re:5 people..,

[WorBlux]

What crime? All they did is allow their browser to be redirected to a specific publicly-accessible site. No security was broken. All that happened is that the bandwidth became so chocked as to be unusable, which is something that happens everyday to some site that slash-dot redirects to.

Re:5 people..,

[jeff4747]

I can make an allegation of criminal wrongdoing against any company or person I want, and that should create a situation where their partners will no longer do business with them, their financial institutions will withhold their funds, and their leaders will be subject to political scrutiny?

No, because a claim by nfc_Death is not very credible. When the claim is made by the people with the power to arrest you, it's a lot more credible.

Do we see a criminal case proceeding against wikileaks proper?

The DOJ has an active investigation.

Re:5 people..,

[jeff4747]

Yes, clearly all small businesses need dozens of credit card processors.

Re:5 people..,

[jeff4747]

There's this thing called "intent".

Re:5 people..,

[sumdumass]

Are you just spouting things at the top of your mind just because you think it's coy or something? I mean seriously, you took nothing I said for it's face value and in turn attempted to restate it with your already incorrect beliefs.

riiiight.
They weren't breaking the law yet it still still required that they *change* the law to make it so that they weren't breaking the law.

Why don't you read up on the law at the time and the situation, the things those suing them were saying instead of making wild stabs based on nothing but guesses based around your mis-perceptional of the situation? Seriously, they actually admitted in an interview that the ACLU lawsuit was more about getting information on what the government was doing then punishing the telcos because they didn't think they would win against them. The immunity clause was there to stop the harassment of the telcos in an attempt to get information about the government's supposedly secrete operations.

So they didn't break the law... yet they needed a change to the law and an amnesty to make it so that they weren't breaking the law.
that's called breaking the law.

They didn't change the law. Well they did but they didn't change the already existing immunity from prosecution or liability. What they changed was the way the immunity kicked in. Before, the telco would have to show up in court and say "here is the authorization, I have complete immunity from liability. The court would enter it into evidence and dismiss the case. The amnesty law said that those cases can't even go to court in the first place, unless there is evidence the telcos didn't act within the law. Again, learn a little about this crap before showing the world your ignorance.

ok, so this "loophole" which required an amnesty and a change to the law to close not only didn't actually mean they were breaking the law but it also didn't exist. they just changed the law and declared the amnesty for fun.

Do you need a Qtip? The loophole was nothing but a means to get the telcos into court for discovery to find out what the government was doing. The EFF even said "the lawsuits were one of the few means available for the public to gain important information about the underpinnings of the wiretapping program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without court warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of links to Al Qaeda. "

The intent was never to punish the telelecoms, it was to damage the government and they weaseled a process in order to do so. This is what congress stopped with the amnesty clause and it was only constitutional because it was already there which is what the ACLU and EFF found out when they attempted to appeal the dismissal of their suits.

Still, going only on your own statements here.

And you are ignoring the very content of those statements in favor of imposing your incorrect views on them. Try reading what was said again and this time, do it without the presumption that you are right. Because you are not and you will find that you are either a useful idiot allowing the system to be manipulated or severely misinformed.

So they didn't do anything wrong yet they required a change to the law and an amnesty to protect them from prosecution for certainly not breaking the law due to a loophole in the law which didn't exist.
great. good we've got that settled.

This has already been explained before. Yes, the way they got immunity was to go to court, present their evidence, and state they have an affirmative defense. This however also put them in violation of existing law about disclosing the NSA warrants which made it difficult to do so. But the entire purpose, as stated by the popular rights groups, was not to punish the telecoms, but to gather information

Re:5 people..,

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks isn't protected by any of those entities. Paypal is. Mastercard is. etc.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

would it have been so hard to simply state that middle paragraph about the reason the amnesty was put in place rather than just being smug and getting more smug every post?

And after all that it still sounds like a damned good thing to protest about: changing the law to hide illegal activities on behalf of the government when people take the governments contractors to court for helping to violate their rights.

Re:5 people..,

[Labcoat Samurai]

So the idea is to hurt PayPal's customers so they'll go elsewhere? All this time, I admired the Montgomery Bus Boycott and its positive impact for civil rights. I didn't realize until now that they had the wrong idea. They should have been *bombing* the buses in order to terrorize the public into avoiding using them.

Re:5 people..,

[Labcoat Samurai]

Nor can I. Believe me, I'd love to. Fucking unicorns.

Re:5 people..,

[sumdumass]

Actually, I stated it in reply to your first response to me. I guess I incorrectly assumed that you knew more about the situation then you did and didn't do it clearly enough.

and I'm not sure it's a good thing to protest. I mean after all, it was changed in order to keep classified information classified. Perhaps protesting over classifying information that could show blatant violations of the law and constitutional violations by the government for little more reason then that would be completely appropriate.

As for taking the contractors to court, we as the public are not supposed to know about these interactions until such time either a case is made against someone or it is determined that one can't be made. Even then, it's more of a need to know thing for anything more then X taps happened and Y companies helped. The problem with what was happening is that it was an ongoing and active issue, some with and some without merit, some proper and probably some that were improper. The public has a right and perhaps an obligation to know if their government is abusing the laws or systems set up to help enforce the laws. But they don't have a right to look into my checking account to see if I received any illicit government payment and they don't have the right to break the law or find loopholes in a vein attempt to ignore the law in order to find out. That would be little different then the government illegally spying on your international phone calls in order to catch the chance that you might be up to no good.

Re:5 people..,

[sumdumass]

Yes, and the only successful portions of those movements involved breaking laws that punished people for something others were allowed to do. IE, get to the back of the damn buss.

There is a hug difference in violating a law that targets a subset of people because of race or gender (whatever that isn't a choice) and violating the same laws that everyone is supposed to follow. That says we aren't going to take it any more. Violating a law that everyone has to follow just says you are a lawless ass who shouldn't be paid any attention outside of locking you away.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

I'd argue that they everyone has every right to find every loophole they can, any organisation which can afford a legal team and a team of accountants will exploit every loophole they can find, should all the ordinary people lack that same right?
Loopholes are after all just a euphamism for "we fucked up writing that" or worse "I don't like what you're doing". exploiting one is perfectly legal.

You speak as if you think there's significant doubt about whether the illegal wiretapping ever actually took place?

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

and again with the idiotic violence comparisons bullshit and hyperbole.

in the context of busses it would be equivilent to horde of people sitting on the busses and refusing to get off so that for the day so lots of regular customers cannot use them, would be late and would be less inclined to rely on the bus service in future.

Re:5 people..,

[WorBlux]

Intent to do what Jeff? You need to show an actus rea before you try to analyze mens rea. There is no legal right to have unchoked bandwidth, thus choking it isn't a breach of any legal duty.

Re:5 people..,

[Labcoat Samurai]

It's not about the violence. It's about it being not ok to target the bus company's passengers when your beef is with the bus company. I think you're overly fixated on violence vs nonviolence here. The former is not categorically wrong and the latter is not automatically justifiable.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

*any* large protest will disupt the buisnesses nearby and the people who are using the facilities suffering protests.
Cars won't be able to get down the streets, people end up late for work and generally get pissed off. that's with *any* large normal protest.

Re:5 people..,

[Labcoat Samurai]

And with football games for that matter. It's beside the point. In the examples, you're giving, the denial of service is a consequence and not the *aim*. Sites are brought down via slashdotting all the time, but the intent is not to bring the website down. Clogging the highways and doing collateral damage to area businesses is not the intent of your typical large protest.

Furthermore, I read your earlier post as condoning the strategy of *targeting* the business's customers as a way of hurting the business. Not that it was unfortunate collateral damage for which we should feel regret, but that it was calculated damage that indicates a job well done.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

Of course protesters aim to disrupt things.
That's a big aspect of effective protests.

Only a couply of years back truck drivers protested raised fuel taxes here by rolling round and around a few small sections of busy road to disrupt traffic and slow everything down with signs all over their trucks.
Yet it was a legit protest.

If you disrupt people doing buisness with a protest you by nececity disrupt both the cusomers and the providers.
One side effect of this is that it encourages people to go with providers who don't attract so much public outrage and hence disruption which only makes the protest more effective.

Re:5 people..,

[jeff4747]

Wow....don't ever give someone legal advice when it matters.

The relevant laws bar disrupting access to another's web site. So yes, there is a legal right to "unchoked bandwidth" in that intentionally DDoSing a website is illegal.

And to go back to your parent post, "All I did was go to this website" is quite the moronic defense. Because the prosecution then asks "Why did you go there?" At which point you have to either come up with a ridiculous lie, or admit you were breaking the law.

Re:5 people..,

[Labcoat Samurai]

Of course protesters aim to disrupt things. That's a big aspect of effective protests.

Only a couply of years back truck drivers protested raised fuel taxes here by rolling round and around a few small sections of busy road to disrupt traffic and slow everything down with signs all over their trucks. Yet it was a legit protest.

They protested high fuel by driving their vehicles around for no other purpose than to protest? And they inconvenienced other drivers. And for this to be analogous, they must also have been intentionally inconveniencing those drivers as a way of blackmailing them into the cause, which it doesn't sound like they were doing. Also, if you were just looking for an example of a protest that you would say targeted the incidental bystanders, look no further than the topic of this thread. Even if the trucking one *were* a good example, it just takes us into pointlessly throwing real world examples back and forth, which ultimately proves nothing.

And finally, you keep using the term "legit" to describe protests. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

If you disrupt people doing buisness with a protest you by nececity disrupt both the cusomers and the providers. One side effect of this is that it encourages people to go with providers who don't attract so much public outrage and hence disruption which only makes the protest more effective.

The *difference* is that you are callous to the collateral damage and, in fact, seem to see it as a positive thing. I never said that collateral damage could be utterly avoided, but I *did* say that we should not make innocent people our targets. I mean, your answer to the hypothetical mom and pop who lost a day of business was not "Sorry, that was not our intent, but it's a necessary consequence of our pursuit of this worthy cause." It was "Good, maybe you won't do business with them in the future."

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

Why would I say "Sorry" to anyone?
I didn't take part in the DDoS in any way. Last time I checked I have no obligation to appologise to people I've never harmed.

As for the meaning of Legitimate protest?It's pretty much an open debate.

http://www.democracyandsociety.com/blog/2011/01/27/what-makes-a-protest-legitimate/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/31/kingsnorth-six-environmental-activists

http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/okbcwf/message/5458

Re:5 people..,

[Labcoat Samurai]

Why would I say "Sorry" to anyone? I didn't take part in the DDoS in any way. Last time I checked I have no obligation to appologise to people I've never harmed.

Ugh. Let's cut through the BS. Do you think they should regret collateral damage or do you think they should embrace and pursue it? That's all this is about. If the former, we are not in disagreement and I misunderstood you earlier. If the latter, then *that's* where we disagree.

As for the meaning of Legitimate protest?It's pretty much an open debate.

http://www.democracyandsociety.com/blog/2011/01/27/what-makes-a-protest-legitimate/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/31/kingsnorth-six-environmental-activists

http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/okbcwf/message/5458

Actually, I wasn't asking what makes a protest legitimate. I was asking what it means to you to say that a protest is legitimate.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

This doesn't cover everything, there's got knows how many ways to protest issues and things which people have every right to protest about and if I came up with a simplistic definition and claimed it covered everything you'd either quickly jump in with an example of reasonable legitimate political protest which it doesn't cover or compltely insane things which it does.

But 2 ways to get easy check marks:

That they're protesting a serious political/social issue: check: a powerful government and multinational corporations putting pressure on a journalistic organisation etc.

That they're doing it with the minimal violence, though as stated earlier there can be cases where violence is justified, it's just a lot harder to justify than non-violent actions.

Re:5 people..,

[HungryHobo]

As for the first question: regret it but not cripple their protests for the sake of avoiding it and in practical terms it does make the protest itself more effective.

Re:5 people..,

[Labcoat Samurai]

Ok, then I withdraw my original objection. The second part (avoiding it), is a separate point we can debate, but if you think it's not appropriate to intentionally target innocent third parties to achieve your objectives, then we don't disagree.

Re:5 people..,

[WorBlux]

The burden of proof isn't on the defendant's, they don't have to offer any testimony. (and you're claiming to know what is and isn't good legal advice) As long is it turns out these men were only redirecting their own machines, there's simply no evidence they did anything wrong. Access was not disrupted, just made very slow. The was no DNS spoofing, no redirections, no cutting of cables, which is what some other prosecutions have been for. They just accessed what was made publicly available in a manner that the host machine was configured to accept. That and any given machine was only a small fraction of any blockage. All you need to make the defense is a couple expert witnesses or even just a through cross-examination of the prosecutions expert witnesses.

Re:5 people..,

[jeff4747]

The burden of proof isn't on the defendant's, they don't have to offer any testimony.

So you're seriously arguing that this will occur:

Prosecutor: Why did you go to that web site?

Defendant: I dunno.

Jury: Not guilty!!

Yeah, not so much with the effective defense. Substitute "I plead the 5th" instead of "I dunno" and you'll get the same result. Yes, juries are supposed to not treat pleading the 5th as an admission of guilt, but juries are also not idiots.

Access was not disrupted, just made very slow.

The problem you seem to be having is not understanding that "made very slow" is disrupting, and against the relevant law.

They just accessed what was made publicly available in a manner that the host machine was configured to accept.

So, a real-world shopkeeper should not be bothered if you stand in the door to his shop, preventing customers from entering or exiting the store? That shopkeeper provided a publicly available door, after all. It's not your fault that by standing in it you are blocking his customers. Clearly, the shopkeeper should have not provided a door for your to block.

That and any given machine was only a small fraction of any blockage

Except that the defendant directed their machine to take part in the DDoS by going to that particular web site.

All you need to make the defense is a couple expert witnesses or even just a through cross-examination of the prosecutions expert witnesses.

Saying what? That directing your computer to a site which is launching a DDoS attack somehow makes you not part of the DDoS attack?

Re:5 people..,

[WorBlux]

Yeah, not so much with the effective defense. Substitute "I plead the 5th"

You're an idiot. In a criminal trial doesn't have to take the stand, and in most criminal trials they don't. The defendant is presumed innocent, and has nothing to prove.

The problem you seem to be having is not understanding that "made very slow" is disrupting, and against the relevant law.

The relevant law mentions unauthorized access, and there isn't any evidence that the access was unauthorized. They connected to the machines on a publicly accessible network in a manner that they were setup to be accessed. This creates the presumption the access was authorized. (You and I are both accessing /. in the same way)None of these settings were disrupted or changed. And beyond that there simply no precedent in case law against it.

So, a real-world shopkeeper

For a real life example look at some of the protests involving Canadian farmers. They all got in their tractors and drove up and down the highways. None of them were arrested though blocking traffic is illegal. Driving any of those tractors on that road was legal individually, even though the aggregate result would have been illegal for one person to do. Real life protests often cut off access to stores and streets, yet I've never seen the same penalty applied to someone marching in a protest, even and unauthorized one that would have been applied had a single person done it.

If a shopkeep has an open door, the presumption is that anyone walking into that door is authorized to do so. If 500 people enter making it impossible for anyone to shop they haven't done anything illegal. The shopkeep can ask them to leave, and as the admin of a site can put up IP blocks. In addition people picket stores all the time, often making access a bit more difficult.

Saying what?

That the computer was configured to accept public access, and that the connection did not exceed the scope of that configuration.

first post

[Anonymous Coward]

And so it begins...

Well Duh

[abigsmurf]

The protection this tool offered was designed around the fact that so many people were using it, it'd be impossible to arrest them all. This kinda falls down when there may be 500 Americans on it but just 10 Brits and you're one of the 10.

Also kinda ironic attacking people's freedom to do business with who they want in the name of protecting free speech.

Re:Well Duh

[Onuma]

The first step in their indoctrination was the Hypocritical Oath.

Re:Well Duh

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Also kinda ironic attacking people's freedom to do business with who they want in the name of protecting free speech.

The word for that isn't irony, it's hypocrisy.

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

"Also kinda ironic attacking people's freedom to do business with who they want in the name of protecting free speech."

some people also protest against companies which help repressive governments with things like the censorship in iran and the great firewall of china.
There's no particular irony here.

It disrupts their freedom to do buisness with who they want no more than picketing the entrance to a store disrupts their freedom to do buisness with who they want.

Re:Well Duh

[serviscope_minor]

oh, yes, isn't it so "ironic" that they're attacking business who are complicit in the government's attempt to circumvent the first amendment by pressuring businesses to "voluntarily" do the censorship for them.

Next, you'll be complaining it's kinda ironic that they're attaching the freedom of the government to ride roughshod over the consitition.

My god, the freedom! Where will it ever end!

Re:Well Duh

[abigsmurf]

It's ironic too. Trying to enforce free speech through the restriction of it.

Re:Well Duh

[ToadProphet]

Undoing incorrect mod...

Re:Well Duh

[dunezone]

The protection this tool offered was designed around the fact that so many people were using it, it'd be impossible to arrest them all. This kinda falls down when there may be 500 Americans on it but just 10 Brits and you're one of the 10.

Even if that number increased their would still be chance of being caught. This is the same thing with the RIAA lawsuits. They couldn't sue everyone but they could sue enough people into scaring the common folk into using legitimate services. This would scare some to not even chance it because they could get caught. Now the difference is that some of these people are savvy enough to find ways to prevent themselves from being caught. Just like with the RIAA, those savvy enough could find alternate sources to those that were actively being monitored but to the non-technical savvy they had to go to legitimate sources.

Re:Well Duh

[abigsmurf]

The businesses did not perform censorship. They have the right to do business with who they want (except if they're covered by discrimination laws). Wikileaks haven't been prevented from saying anything by them.

If I'm a shop keeper and I refuse to put a pro-life or a pro-abortion poster in my window am I engaging in censorship?

Wikileaks can still leak all they want, Visa can come out and say they don't like wikileaks and/or refuse to deal with them.

Re:Well Duh

[phoenixwade]

oh, yes, isn't it so "ironic" that they're attacking business who are complicit in the government's attempt to circumvent the first amendment by pressuring businesses to "voluntarily" do the censorship for them.

Next, you'll be complaining it's kinda ironic that they're attaching the freedom of the government to ride roughshod over the consitition.

My god, the freedom! Where will it ever end!

I'm not the OP but commenting on the irony of a thing is not the same as complaining about it. Reading all that extra motivation and content into a remark is what creates a false controversy. "Straw man" is the logic fallacy involved.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Psychopath]

oh, yes, isn't it so "ironic" that they're attacking business who are complicit in the government's attempt to circumvent the first amendment by pressuring businesses to "voluntarily" do the censorship for them.

Next, you'll be complaining it's kinda ironic that they're attaching the freedom of the government to ride roughshod over the consitition.

My god, the freedom! Where will it ever end!

Even if I were to grant that everything you said is 100% accurate, it is simply not effective to protest restrictions of free speech by restricting free speech. The DDOS attacks in Wikileak's name did far more to damage the public perception of Wikileaks than it did in denying electronic services to the targets.

Re:Well Duh

[Monkeedude1212]

Also kinda ironic attacking people's freedom to do business with who they want in the name of protecting free speech.

Also ironic that stopping people's ability to hinder that business could be considered protecting free speech... It goes both ways, really.

I personally don't think free speech has anything to do with it. Supporting Wikileaks does not necessarily mean that you banner behind the motto "Free speech". If thats what the 15 year olds were shouting, well, all the power to them.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Also kinda ironic attacking people's freedom to do business with who they want in the name of protecting free speech.

How is it ironic? They intentionally published confidential and classified documents which they knew were stolen with the intention is causing unjustified damage. Just because they are not the ones stole them does not mean they have "clean hands". They also participated in DDOS attacks which itself a crime. These guys are not vigilantes, they are just are just script kiddies looking for an excuse. Throw the book at 'em.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I didn't realise resistance was now 'ironic'. Glad you enlightened us all on that one! I expect you'll now go on to tell the people of Egypt how ironic it is that they attack the police in the name of democracy.

Re:Well Duh

[Yvanhoe]

Well, the idea is that you don't deserve freedoms you deny to others. Usually governments do this kind of balance and give fines or prison time. When the government fails, someone has to do something.

Re:Well Duh

[Tim C]

More to the point, while they can't arrest everyone (although as you say if there are few enough, then they can) they certainly can pick a bunch and arrest them to make an example of them.

Re:Well Duh

[Yvanhoe]

They broke a contract with a client with no valid reason and with the intent to hurt them. It is illegal, this is not a lawful way of doing business. Wikileaks will probably attack them.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's ironic. Not like rain on your wedding day, but still...

Re:Well Duh

[godefroi]

You have a citation for that? What contract did they break? I'll bet there's a clause in there that allowed them to break it.

Re:Well Duh

[__aaelyr464]

What contract? I'm just curious, this isn't a flame post. If Visa did indeed sign some kind of contract stating they would provide credit card service for X number of years, then yes there's a problem. Otherwise, if nothing was signed stating such a thing, I don't see any laws being broken. IANAL, so if I'm wrong someone please tell me.

Re:Well Duh

[Americano]

It is not illegal. It is not unlawful.

It is, in fact, quite typical to see businesses post a sign indicating that "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

They are not OBLIGATED to serve you. They are not OBLIGATED to provide you with a platform and distribution channel for your free speech. Business patronage is voluntary - would you be slamming Wikileaks if they had purchased service from Amazon, and then Wikileaks decided that some other service was better suited for their needs, and stopped paying for (and using) Amazon's services? After all, Amazon has a RIGHT to that income that they've come to expect... don't they?

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

Well the way they terminated the contract was shifty enough to get them hauled over the coals by the regulators in at least one country.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-visa-licenses-revoked-iceland-wikileaks/

Re:Well Duh

[Riceballsan]

Well yes and no. Picketing a store is one thing you are basically putting your message on display. There are rules to picketing however, like for instance a picketer cannot prevent someone from entering the store, I believe the rules allow something like a 5-10 second stall but no more then that. DDOSing however has the goal of taking the site completely down for hours, on top of that it fails to actually deliver the message to the intended customer of why they are doing it. It is the exact oposite of picketing in that regard

Picketing: allowing customers to enter the store, but informing them why you think they shouldn't
DDOSing: Preventing customers from entering the store altogether while lacking the ability to explain why.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this is so great news. In the mean time, where's Osama Bin Laden?

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

oh absolutely.
It's not a very effective form of protest unless it gets lots and lots of media attention.

I just get sick of all the idiots in this thread comparing it to firebombing/ram raiding the store because they want to make it sound scary.

it's a poor form of political protest but it is political protest non the less and an utterly non-violent form as no people or property are harmed in any way.

Re:Well Duh

[Riceballsan]

Indeed, I would never go as far as to compare it to violence or proporty damage, I would however liken it to a full blockade around a building, preventing people from entering, which is for all intents and purposes still completely illegal and well outside the realm of "free speach".

Re:Well Duh

[Yvanhoe]

Well that kind of clause is abusive. In France that means that you can safely sign such a contract, the law protects you from it being applied, even if you signed the contract. Here is a link another poster gave : http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-visa-licenses-revoked-iceland-wikileaks/

They very well be banned to operate in Iceland over this.

Re:Well Duh

[wisty]

It's also kinda ironic that despite them belonging to "Anonymous", all of them just happen to be boys aged 15-25.

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

Is there anything at all that can be done online similar to picketing without being a full blockade?

If not then all-online companies become pretty much immune to anything except letter writing campaigns vs bricks and mortar companies which can be picketed or end up with people holding sit-ins.

perhaps a highly coordinated DDoS which switched on and off every 60 seconds....

Re:Well Duh

[Riceballsan]

I still fail to see any evidence of a contract deal. I can't see any information of a sign showing mastercard agreeing to transfer money to wikileaks. Honestly if you want to compare bad practices with financial institutes, mastercard started just stopping money from being transfered via their lines essentially, the money stayed in the pockets of those who wanted to give it, available to be transfered via any company that wanted to do business with wikileaks. Compared to say when paypal went after the mindcraft creator, where paypal just held onto the money leaving it neither in the hands of the donators nor the person who earned it.

Re:Well Duh

[ToasterMonkey]

"Also kinda ironic attacking people's freedom to do business with who they want in the name of protecting free speech."

some people also protest against companies which help repressive governments with things like the censorship in iran and the great firewall of china.
There's no particular irony here.

It disrupts their freedom to do buisness with who they want no more than picketing the entrance to a store disrupts their freedom to do buisness with who they want.

Except it's illegal to block the entrance/exits.
You've really got to have a screw loose to see DDoS as picketing.

Re:Well Duh

[Americano]

Patronizing a business is not "signing a contract". There were no contractual obligations between Amazon and Wikileaks. There MAY have been contractual obligations between MC/Visa and the local Icelandic company that handled processing for them - and if there is, I'm sure a suit for breach of contract will help them recoup their losses and damages.

Let's also be very clear about this: Wikileaks violated at least the copyright clause of the Amazon Web Services Terms of Use. The leaked documents are not the property of Wikileaks, and they do not own the copyrights to those documents. They violated the terms of use in uploading and distributing them. As such, Amazon reserves the right to terminate service to people who violate their terms of use.

The MC/Visa issue is also not going to go far. This is politicians making a lot of noise to make some political points. It happens everywhere there's politicians. If a court rules that MC & Visa *must* do business with people they don't wish to, then you're opening up a hugely problematic precedent that will not stand for long because it will create consumer abuse nightmares. A broad "you can't refuse to provide services to anybody who demands it" ruling simply isn't sustainable.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

So ... if you decide not to do business with one person, you don't deserve to do business with anyone, and it is laudible for vigilantes to deny you that right?

So ... if I refused to let my daughter attend a school run by someone who was proven to be sharing child porn, but avoided conviction on a technicality, you would think it perfectly fine for you to use illegal techniques to prevent my daughter from attending any school?

Or does this "logic" only apply when the person I choose not to do business with is someone you like?

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

I don't see it as picketing, I see it as potentially just another form of non-violent protest.
It's not that much of a strech.
Sit-ins are also illegal yet they're also valid forms of protest.

Re:Well Duh

[anti-pop-frustration]

This is not simply about the DDoS, these guys are being made an example of.

Every police investigation and judicial action related to Wikileaks, from Bradly Manning "Hannibal Lecter"-like punitive detention to Assange's no charge house arrest to this recent (and amazingly fast) wave of DDOS arrests, everything linked to Wikileaks has been given "special priority".

It warms my heart to see US, UK and EU law enforcement agencies and governments working hand in hand this way. If only they would show that same level of collaboration and efficiency in combating (real) international crimes like human trafficking or corporate tax evasion.

Seriously, an incredible number of computer crime operations (spam, commercial DDoS etc.) go unpunished for years, but these guys are in prison less than 2 months after having DDoS'ed Visa showroom website for a few hours?

Silly me, I thought the judicial branch was supposed to be independent and not bow to government or political pressure.

Re:Well Duh

[jgtg32a]

Right, they also got arrested and went to jail for it

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

yes?
your point?
where did I say they shouldn't/didn't get arrested?

I'm only arguing that it's non-violent political protest and should be treated as such.

Re:Well Duh

[jahudabudy]

They are not OBLIGATED to serve you. They are not OBLIGATED to provide you with a platform and distribution channel for your free speech.

Without reading though my entire contract, I can't be sure, but I have a strong suspicion they have some obligation to provide me with financial services (as long as I am a customer, of course). The breach comes in their refusal to honor my desire to utilize their service to donate to Wikileaks. What if tomorrow Visa said they would no longer process any transactions with Walmart? That would end up in court, and I doubt it would be nearly as black and white as some people pretend the Wikileaks boycott is.

Re:Well Duh

[poity]

I wouldn't say it's the same as picketing. When picketing, people who pass by are made aware of the protesters' dispute and their side of the story, but are still free to pass and conduct business. The picketers are there to dissuade rather than to physically impede. DDoS attacks are not like this, since it effectively puts a locked fence around the business. For a internet equivalent to picketing one could consider a concerted effort into SEO for a website that tells the story of injustice, so that when a potential customer searches for "amazon" online he/she would see in the first or second link an appeal from those who oppose.

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

"A broad "you can't refuse to provide services to anybody who demands it" ruling simply isn't sustainable."

yes?
and?
a company which uses sweatshop labour may not be breaking the local laws in the 3rd world country where they're doing buisness or breaking any contracts yet people still have every right to protest their actions.
And depending where you live there can be a lot of limits to your right to refuse service.
if you just refuse service to all black people or gay people you can end up in hot water in some places.
if you refuse service without good justification in others you can also get in trouble.

Helping a forgien government pressure a journalistic organisation by proxy can attract a certain amount of ire in many places.

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

which is more than a little weak, online companies are effectively immune to most traditional forms of protest such as picketing or sit-ins.

You're pretty much stuck with letter writing campaigns and putting a sign on your own lawn.

A DDoS is closest to a sit-in in that respect. a sit in can also get you arrested but is considered a legitimate form of non-violent protest.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Moran,

I'll throw you out of my shop if I ever see you it in -- just to prove a point. You will probably hang out outside throwing a fit about me to the locals passing by while waiting on hold with the police because I "violated" your rights and you expect them to come force me to let you in my store.

Good luck in life. You've got quite a bit of growing up to do.

Re:Well Duh

[halcyon1234]

If I'm a shop keeper and I refuse to put a pro-life or a pro-abortion poster in my window am I engaging in censorship?

No. But if your shop is a print shop, and you refuse to print flyers for an abortion clinic, then yes, you are censoring them. And if you then lobby the ink-and-paper distributors to not give ink and paper to any copy shop that WILL do work for that clinic, then you are. And if you refuse to do business with anyone who manages to actually get a copy of the flyer-- well, you see where I'm going.

Now the crux is if any of the above is illegal or immoral, or both or neither.

Re:Well Duh

[poity]

Legitimate certainly, but not legal, and still nowhere close to picketing.
And I wouldn't say an all out SEO effort to promote an opposing blog is weak. It takes more work than running a script, but it would communicate one's point to far more people merely because it is peaceful, reasoned, and respectful of others.
DDoS doesn't work to promote a cause and the proof is here in all the posts mocking Anon.

Re:Well Duh

[GameboyRMH]

Osama Bin who? Is he that awful terrorist who killed all those people with his website?

Re:Well Duh

[GameboyRMH]

Is there anything at all that can be done online similar to picketing without being a full blockade?

Not really. You could deface the site, but that's illegal as well, and it may not even be possible on a well-secured server.

Re:Well Duh

[GameboyRMH]

This is what VWvortex users did to Arizona Parking Solutions.

I can't find a good summary of the story so I'll try to make one.

A broke student on VWvortex (VW car forum) got his car booted on a technicality while at some college campus. He had no chance in hell of paying it. But what he could do was wheel his car back into his garage on dollies. Pics and updates were posted all along, and there was much rejoicing.

The company that handled the parking lots for the campus was Arizona Parking Solutions. They also managed the parking lots for the HOA where the guy lived. They tried to get him to pay using dickish tactics but he was legally in the clear, there was nothing they could do about it. So APS went apeshit and started booting cars like crazy in his neighborhood. This is when the Internet Hate Machine fired up.

A hate site was made for APS and Google bombed (back when you could Google bomb things), so that the first result for Arizona Parking Solutions was the nazi-themed hate site that linked to the thread. Finally when the media started to get wind of this, APS tucked tail and ran.

The original epic thread is gone quite sadly, but here are some highlights:

http://www.clublexus.com/forums/car-chat/362154-epic-thread-homeowner-vs-hoa-and-arizona-parking-solutions-boot-me-i-move-car.html

Re:Well Duh

[GameboyRMH]

Hahaha I hope those fuckers get shut down in Iceland. The only downside is that Discover will then have a monopoly there, but that will mean more competition internationally.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

The businesses did not perform censorship.

No, perhaps not. Perhaps they just decided to not do business with WikiLeaks anymore.

But the troubling part is that, before they decided this, the US Government made it very clear that WikiLeaks, and those supporting it, would be viewed with suspicion. If you have no particular desire to do or not do business with an organization, but the US Gov't says a particular organization is bad, then is it that business choosing not to do business with them? Or is it the US Gov't telling them, through a very clear and overt suggestion, that they not?

"Hey, that's a nice business you got there. Wouldn't want you associating with the *wrong* people now, would we?"

This is my, and I suspect many other people's, fear. Especially of people like you who ignore the bigger picture and make the claim "Oh, Businesses should be able to do whatever they want!" and offload your critical thinking and replace it with ideology.

So, who are you defending. Visa? Do they need defense? Really? Or are you defending an ideology? I understand that its easy to be a sycophant - I mean, success is attractive - but maybe it's not a bad idea to support the underdog (that would be WikiLeaks), especially if what they're doing is to expose corruption... of the people you're defending.

Re:Well Duh

[jeff4747]

The protection this tool offered was designed around the fact that so many people were using it, it'd be impossible to arrest them all.

It's amusing how often people underestimate the abilities of law enforcement. 500 Americans? We arrest that in a typical day in one state. We get close to that on a particularly "bad" day in Los Angeles alone.

The sad thing about the entire WikiLeaks situation is just how badly they've overestimated their ability to influence governments.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

No, your ideas of what is censorship are complete bullshit. If you refuse to do business that is your right, and other people then have the right to not print at your shop because you're notoriously a douche. Night clubs are allowed to maintain a dress code, stores can ban a person for any reason they like, you can choose not to do business with people based on credit, radio stations and television stations can decide what advertisements they want to air, nobody has to give you a venue to speak. You have no idea what free speech is, trampling everybody else's rights to give somebody a venue to say something is not what America or the Bill of Rights are about, but I guess thats lost on the current generation who expect to be completely free from any consequences resulting from exercising their rights.

Re:Well Duh

[ifiwereasculptor]

It's more like hundreds of people entering a bank and waiting in line. Greatly disturbs the service, but by requesting it more than it can be provided. Now even if done on purpose and each of the protesters was only there to deposit and/or transfer pennies, it wouldn't be illegal. Though I don't think, despite any similarities, that internet behavior translates very well to real life one. In this particular case, people with important accounts have their own managers, so they already found a way to sort the riffraff and don't really care how long they have to wait.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because attacks on financial centers don't affect everybody way more than most things. No, its not like civilization rests on a bedrock of belief in our financials. Everybody would feel real comfortable not having any direct source of food or water or ability to obtain them without money if sometimes money just stopped working. Very clever of you to spot this as being just an unfair targeting of a real hero and his supporters.

Re:Well Duh

[poity]

Haha what a sweet story!

Re:Well Duh

[Labcoat Samurai]

I just get sick of all the idiots in this thread comparing it to firebombing/ram raiding the store because they want to make it sound scary.

I would find this objection compelling if the problem were just one of magnitude, but I find it more one of principle. Firebombing a store is *worse* than organizing a DDoS against PayPal. But both are wrong. And depending on how the analogy is constructed, they could even be wrong for some of the same reasons. Ultimately, people are doing reductio ad absurdum. Try to justify Anonymous's action via an argument and people carry that to an absurd conclusion where you can use analogous arguments to justify vastly less acceptable actions.

Re:Well Duh

[Labcoat Samurai]

I personally thought you were arguing that they shouldn't be treated as criminals (i.e. should be let off the hook). If you just don't want them to be treated as violent offenders... *shrug*, ok. For all the analogies being thrown about, I don't think anyone actually advocated treating them as violent offenders.

Re:Well Duh

[pclminion]

The businesses did not perform censorship. They have the right to do business with who they want

All well and good, but if you really are an absolutist about this, it can create huge problems. Select some absolutely critical service that's provided by the government, and turn it over to private enterprise. Does that service become less critical because it is in private hands who can arbitrarily provide or not provide that service to whoever they want?

There are only two major companies who process global credit card transactions. "Use a different provider" isn't a useful suggestion when both providers are doing the exact same thing. How else are we to communicate a message to these companies? Serious question.

Re:Well Duh

[Americano]

Yes, and what?

"people protesting" is not a "legal penalty" for refusing to provide services. I never suggested people don't have "the right to protest" - I said that Amazon had every legal right to refuse to provide service, and that doing so is not a breach of any contract.

Re:Well Duh

[Americano]

Without reading though my entire contract, I can't be sure, but I have a strong suspicion they have some obligation to provide me with financial services (as long as I am a customer, of course).

I think what you mean to say is, "I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, but I'll just throw out what I *think* should have happened and assume that it's an accurate legal opinion supported by numerous precedents." Visa can stop taking your money and stop providing you with services at any time they wish - when you sign up for a service, there's a terms of use document provided for you there, as well. It's not a contract, it's a set of rules which Visa requires you to agree to when you use their service. If you don't like them, don't agree with them, or plan to violate them, then perhaps you shouldn't do business with Visa.

What if tomorrow Visa said they would no longer process any transactions with Walmart?

Then you would need to use a different credit card for your shopping at Walmart, and if Walmart felt that Visa had violated some sort of a contract with Walmart, then it would be up to Walmart to file a claim against Visa. As a consumer, you could write a strongly worded letter to Walmart and Visa, and exhort them to work out their differences and offer Visa as a payment option, and shop elsewhere until they change their policies... and that's about the extent of it - you certainly couldn't barricade off every Walmart in the country to prevent people who do want to shop there from getting inside until they began accepting Visa again.

The customers of Walmart would have zero legal standing to file a claim against Visa for "failing to be accepted at Walmart." If wikileaks signed a contract with Amazon, then they can certainly pursue a claim against Amazon for breach of contract. Except, they DON'T have a 'contract' with Amazon, they have a 'terms of use' agreement they agreed to when they signed up for the service. They then proceeded to clearly violate the terms of use by uploading content for distribution that they do not own, and do not control. If there is no contract, there can be no violation of a contract.

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

what is this inane rambling?

You provide no service and nobody cares about you.

During the civil rights movement if a buisness refused to do buisness with black people they sometimes ended up with a sitin so that nobody could do buisness with them.
Was this hipocritical?

If a company uses sweatshop labour or is known for taking advantage of people in the 3rd world and people picket or hold a sit in to protest them shitting all over other peoples rights by infringing on that companies right to do buisness is that hypocritical?

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

There's a pretty massive line between violent murderous attack and totally non-violent political protest.

comparing it to a sit-in isn't reductio ad absurdum, it's an almost 1:1 comparison on almost every point.

yet again and again and again people keep on hammering away talking about shooting this or firbombing that or blowing up something else.

it's totally non-violent political protest which I tend to view in a vastly better light even when it involves breaking the law in some way than most other crimes.(call me crazy if you like)

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

specifically I'd consider them political crimes, not merely as non-violent ones: distinct from people who non-violently embezzled a load or money or hacked into servers for credit card numbers.

Re:Well Duh

[BitterOak]

They broke a contract with a client with no valid reason and with the intent to hurt them. It is illegal, this is not a lawful way of doing business. Wikileaks will probably attack them.

If that's the case, the correct remedy is for Wikileaks to take them to court over the breach of contract. A breach of contract doesn't license third parties to launch denial of service attacks against the party breaching the contract.

Re:Well Duh

[jahudabudy]

I think what you mean to say is, "I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, but I'll just throw out what I *think* should have happened and assume that it's an accurate legal opinion supported by numerous precedents."
,br /> As opposed to your well cited opinion on the legal position? To reiterate, I said exactly what I meant: I haven't gone back and read my contract with a specific eye to this issue (which is a first in my experience), but I suspect credit card companies have some obligation to their customers (credit holders) to provide services at all participating merchants. Yes, they can cut off services to specific merchants for specified reasons, but for random, non-specific reasons? I wouldn't be surprised if that opened them up to liability. Of course the question is ultimately up to any courts this comes before, but you have failed to convince me my concerns are not legitimate. A) You failed to address my point except to acknowledge it and dismiss it without any counterpoints B) You fail to provide any support for your counter position (which ignores my actual argument); you say "I disagree b/c I disagree"

My point about Walmart is simply that if Visa pulled this sort of thing with an actual player, the legal issues would quickly become muddled. The courts would become involved, and no one would imagine it was a black and white issue.

Re:Well Duh

[Omestes]

DDoS doesn't work to promote a cause and the proof is here in all the posts mocking Anon.

I'm not going to side for or against Anon or various DDOS "protests"; I'm just going to say your point doesn't follow your reasoning. There are about an equal number of supporting posts as well. And if not for the attacks this wouldn't even be a discussion, which pretty much says that the attacks (good or bad) were effective in getting Anon's point across, meaning they worked.

I think the DDOS as protest idea is a mixed bag, ultimately, though. While it is very effective, and is definitely better than most of the idiotic hyperbole people here are tossing around ("its like firebombing things!", "Its MURDER!", etc...), it does walk a very fine line. It is illegal, and should be. It is also one of the few viable alternatives to physical protest I can see, there isn't any possible way to mirror an actual, real life, protest to a company that is only an online presence. How else do you get your point across?

I'm also not going to cry too much for the people who couldn't do business for the duration. I live in Phoenix, and for awhile this year our whole downtown area was pretty much dead to traffic or sane people every weekend for the illegal immigration brouhaha. A lot of businesses with no stake in either side of the hullabaloo lost business. Thats the price of existing in a society with the right of political expression. Its a decent sacrifice, since the benefits of protest is much higher than the short-term costs.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm a shop keeper and I refuse to put a pro-life or a pro-abortion poster in my window am I engaging in censorship?

No but if you refuse to serve customers who are prolife on that basis alone then you may not only be engaging in censorship but may also land in legal trouble. No one is criticizing VISA for not putting an "I support Wikileaks" banner on their homepage. They are being criticized for actively refusing service to a perfectly legitimate customer. Also Wikileaks can't leak all they want, not if they are cut off from a money source.

That would be like me saying I'm removing all oxygen from your house, but feel free to live in it all you want.

Re:Well Duh

[Omestes]

They intentionally published confidential and classified documents which they knew were stolen with the intention is causing unjustified damage.

What damage, and what intent? Please show the intent, and please show the damage? From everything I've read, pretty much everyone agrees that there has been no real damage (i.e. loss of life) directly traceable to Wikileaks. I don't feel too bad about the U.S. having egg on its face, I think that is completely deserved and not terribly surprising. You can't get upset with someone outing you for cheating on your wife, since it wouldn't have happened if you weren't cheating on your wife in the first place. If you don't want to be embarrassed, don't do embarrassing things. As an American, we SHOULD be embarrassed and ashamed. And as an adherent of freedom and democracy, we should have access to as much information as humanly possible, no matter how bad a light it paints us in (indeed, this information is more important to expose).

I don't trust the government to be honest, and properly expose documents. It has a vested interest in looking good, so why would it release documents paints it badly, and worse, might cause certain politicians to not be re-elected (the government, first, serves the careers of politicians). Its letting the foxes guard the chickens.

The intention, then, was to allow US, American citizens, to make informed decisions about our government, free from governmental obfuscation and propaganda. A noble, if not dangerous, goal. Democracy depends on a high degree of openness, and the high availability of information.

Yes, there are risks, but so far the consequences have been acceptable (meaning; pretty much none).

Also, we don't even know if Wikileaks are breaking any law, U.S. or international. The courts generally love the First Amendment (ala Pentagon Papers).

Furthermore, WIKILEAKS DID NOT ORGANIZE, MUCH LESS PARTICIPATE IN ANY DDOS ATTACKS. That was Anon, a third party, who has no affiliation with Wikileaks outside of agreeing with the cause (as much as Anon can agree about anything), and seeing themselves as the defender of the internet and its mythic ideal of open information.

The DDOS attacks were illegal, and there should be consequences. But illegal doesn't mean immortal (I'm not going to argue either way on that).

. Just because they are not the ones stole them does not mean they have "clean hands".

If I worked with Wikileaks I probably wouldn't be losing any sleep. So far there has been minimal harm, and a pretty good potential for benefit.

they are just are just script kiddies looking for an excuse.

Oh noes, their 1337 computer skills are less than your perceived skills! Who cares? What does that have to do with anything?

Though it is Anon, and now I won't be happy until they start to respond with Script Kitties.

Re:Well Duh

[Labcoat Samurai]

There's a pretty massive line between violent murderous attack and totally non-violent political protest.

comparing it to a sit-in isn't reductio ad absurdum, it's an almost 1:1 comparison on almost every point.

If you prefer the sit-in analogy, I'll oblige you. I believe sit-ins can be wrong. I believe a sit-in in response to what PayPal did would be wrong (if such a thing made practical sense, which, of course, it doesn't, since PayPal does their business online). I'm not sure what you think you're gaining by re-framing the debate in that way.

yet again and again and again people keep on hammering away talking about shooting this or firbombing that or blowing up something else.

it's totally non-violent political protest which I tend to view in a vastly better light even when it involves breaking the law in some way than most other crimes.(call me crazy if you like)

Blah. It's arbitrary. Every 4th of July, we here in the US celebrate the epitome of violent protest. Sometimes violence is appropriate. My point was never about the violence, but don't let that stop you from completely misreading my point and calling me an idiot.

Re:Well Duh

[Labcoat Samurai]

In your eyes, what's the difference? Specifically, what's the difference in how we should treat them?

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

well this case being in the UK the big one would be that most countries refuse to extradite suspects of political crimes.

If they're going to go to court it should be a UK one even if paypal or mastercard want it to be done through the US or elsewhere where it might get a longer sentence.

Re:Well Duh

[HungryHobo]

"Sometimes violence is appropriate."

sometimes.
On the other hand in the modern world it's vastly easier to demonise someone you don't like by accusing them of using violence and terror to apply political pressure rather than simply being really really annoying and obstructive.

Re:Well Duh

[AmiMoJo]

Depends on the reason, e.g. because someone is black or a Muslim is not an acceptable reason to not to business with them. In fact the law specifically disallows it.

Re:Well Duh

[Americano]

How exactly should I go about proving to you that there is no contract and there is no law preventing this? Sort of hard to cite "the entirety of the law."

As the one making the assertion that visa/MC has violated some aspect of a contract or a law, the burden rests on you to cite the violations you believe they're guilty of.

If you have a visa card, it will be accepted "where visa cards are accepted.". Visa has no obligation to provide service "wherever you want it," and no merchant has an obligation to accept visa if they don't wish to.

If visa said, "person a can use their visa here, but person b may not," you might have a point. But thats not what they're doing. They are well within their rights to terminate their business arrangements with wikileaks. That may be unpopular, but it is not illegal, and suggesting it is - or should be - is a short step away from creating a state in which your rights are "whatever the government says they are today."

Re:Well Duh

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

On the other hand, if you're not doing business with someone on the basis of their actions -- when said actions directly violate the terms of service they agreed to -- then the law allows it.

Re:Well Duh

[jahudabudy]

They are well within their rights to terminate their business arrangements with wikileaks

Yeah, you keep saying that. And you're right. My point is that is irrelevant, yet you and others continue to hammer on it. Visa DOES have a business arrangement with my bank, who has a business arrangement with me. And these business arrangements in fact ARE governed by contracts (well, I certainly hope my bank has a contract with Visa; I would be uncomfortable learning they are morons), they are also governed by governmental regulations. Visa obviously has some obligations on their end. The question is whether these obligations allow them to deny services on a corporate whim. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, I don't recall stating a belief one way or the other. I'm simply pointing out that your rather hysterical defense of Visa is focusing on a completely irrelevant point; if any violations did occur, it would be at the exact opposite end than the one you are focused on.

Re:Well Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be fine, except that between Visa, Mastercard and Paypal, you have a cartel that controls north of 90% of all online payment volumes.

The "picketing to block the entrance to the store" analogy is closer to what Visa/Mastercard/Paypal did to Wikileaks than it is to what Anonymous did in return

Lame

[MrL0G1C]

So they sit on there arses while billions of pounds of financial cybercrimes are committed, trillions of spam sent, and then arrest some 15 year old for hurling a few packets in the name of free speech - fucking lame.

Re:Lame

[RazzleFrog]

I'm pretty sure that they are working on those other crimes, too (well not the spam - that's not a crime in all jurisdictions) but the people perpetrating are a bit more savvy than the teenagers in this case.

And DDoS attacks in support of WikiLeaks makes about as much sense as setting fire to puppies to protest budget cuts to the ASCPA.

Re:Lame

[abigsmurf]

Using a tool designed to silence people you disagree with or dislike cannot be described as doing something 'in the name of free speech'.

Re:Lame

[Tr3vin]

If you want to promote free speech, then you shouldn't attempt to hurt others' free speech. I also imagine these guys were caught because they were just doing it for the lulz and were not very careful.

Re:Lame

[frozentier]

Well, I'd say the majority of the members of Anon aren't exactly rocket scientists to begin with. How careful are you going to be when you're used to trolling porn, weed, and Boxxy threads?

Re:Lame

[Pi1grim]

Actually spamming is a crime. People are doing real time in prison for that.

Re:Lame

[heathen_01]

Priority matters. Other hacking, spam ect does not reflect directly on the government. See also the UFO Hacker.

Re:Lame

[0123456]

I'm pretty sure that they are working on those other crimes, too (well not the spam - that's not a crime in all jurisdictions) but the people perpetrating are a bit more savvy than the teenagers in this case.

You clearly don't know the British police. All they care about is meeting their 'cleanup targets', which is why you'll see a dozen of them sitting at the side of the road looking for cars with expired road tax but you can't get one to come to your house when you're burgled, and they would much rather arrest a fifteen-year-old know-nothing who'll admit everything than a banker who's going to spend millions of his ill-gotten gains on lawyers and politicians.

Re:Lame

[LordLimecat]

to quote from parent:

- that's not a crime in all jurisdictions

Re:Lame

[trollertron3000]

I disagree. I think what's lame is "hackers" that are really just guys that downloaded an application written for them. Then they are surprised when they get caught, because they have no clue what is truly happening or how to do what they intend. That's the very definition of lame. They are posers and I have no love for posers. It might be elitist but seriously, stay on the curb if you don't know what you are doing. Too many these days think they can read a few articles on gizmodo, walk through a DIY lego-minstorm hack, and that qualifies them as super-awesome-hackers. It's lame.

I have an useful motto when it comes to these things - I'm not the law. So break it. I don't care. But when you get caught remember that I don't care.

I know it's a jaded view and I apologize in advance for the terseness but it's how I feel.

Re:Lame

[HungryHobo]

which would make sense if they actually silenced them.

they disrupted their buisness, which is pretty much the point of any non-violent protest against a buisness and it's practices.

Re:Lame

[Securityemo]

Also, to the ones calling the cops "lazy fucks going after the low-hanging fruit" - consider the situation as these people being the only ones they realistically *can* catch.

Re:Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

What scares me is I probably know the people who have been doing this.

Operation: Unmask anyone?

Re:Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you haven't noticed by now, so i will inform you of this.

Police forces tend to go after the low hanging fruit most of the time, simply because it gives them high numbers in the reports at the end of whatever term.
They don't care how stupid it is, they don't care how trivial it is, they will do it simply because it increments those numbers ever higher.

This tends to be the general voice among most officers of the law, there are a few decent people who think about the bigger picture and go after those who do actual harm.

Sucks, doesn't it? But this is what happens when governments don't pay their police forces enough money, they get paid by 3rd parties to do their bidding instead.
Sadly media companies tend to be the biggest contributor.

Re:Lame

[symes]

It was a protest. Short lived, fairly effective (in that it raised awareness of their issue) and no one got hurt. If these same people took to the streets with megaphones, stood outside Barclays and shouted their message out as loudly as they could, most likely the police would turn up and ask them to move along and that would be that. We worry that kids are not engaging in politics and then arrest them when they voice concern - pffft, it is a crazy world.

Re:Lame

[RazzleFrog]

There are good ways to voice your concern and bad way. Kids with megaphones outside Barclays - ok. Kids throwing firebombs into Barclays - bad. Obviously this is somewhere in between the two. It's more like kids creating a blockade in front of the bank where a little old lady is trying to cash her check. They'd get arrested, too.

Re:Lame

[Americano]

Actually, they might be arrested if they were standing on Barclay's property and refused to move. That's trespass. Barclay can't stop you from protesting on public property outside their office, but they certainly aren't obligated to provide you with a space in which to protest.

Much like they can't stop you for putting up a website that's (truthfully - libel would be a separate issue) critical of them and their business practices, but they don't have to provide you with a hosting server & bandwidth to do it on.

And if you actually blockade them so that NO business can get in or out, you will probably also run afoul of the law in the "real" world, too.

Re:Lame

[HungryHobo]

and a DDoS is far far far towards the Kids with megaphones side of that scale.

nobody was hurt. no property was damaged. etc etc. utterly non violent.

and " blockade in front of the bank " has another name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in

Re:Lame

[starsky51]

I have an useful motto when it comes to these things - I'm not the law. So break it. I don't care. But when you get caught remember that I don't care.

That is useful. I hope you quote that to the next hooded gentleman who stops you on the street and asks for your mobile phone.

(wait.. have I just been trollertronned?)

Re:Lame

[RazzleFrog]

Yes and people get arrested for sit-ins so I am not sure what your argument is. They did something illegal and got arrested. Not sure why this is surprising news.

I always find it interesting that you are following every post of mine. I am flattered that you think my opinion matters that much. I do think you are a little bit defensive on this topic, though.

Re:Lame

[HungryHobo]

Sure people get arrested for sit-ins but they're still considered a valid form of political protest.

I'm merely replying to any inane or rediculously over-dramatic posts about it.
(read,"throwing firebombs into Barclays ")

it's mere happenstance that you're creating more of those posts than anyone else in this thread.

Re:Lame

[trollertron3000]

Well that motto goes hand in hand with a concealed carry and a .45 ACP. So I'm covered. But thanks for the concern.

Re:Lame

[tobiah]

Clearly any sentence that begins with the word "obviously" is logically flawed and lacks the presumed evidence ;-)

Re:Lame

[sgt_doom]

Thank you!!

Anyone concerned citizen --- or member of humanity --- fully realizes just how many innocents have been maimed and murdered by the presently living David Rockefeller (and his minions, Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle, Peter G. Peterson) and the Rockefeller family in general over four generations. (The same could be said for the Bush family, but to a lesser extent, of course.)

What few realize, though, is how easily we are manipulated. How many people believe they are doing a good deed when they contribute to the League of Conservation Voters --- without realizing or thinking as to why that organization is so vociferously supporting the cap-and-trade scam, the latest Wall Street-Oil Cartel shadow banking scam.

How many believe they are doing a good deed when they contribute to the Nature Conservancy, yet don't follow up and track what occurs after such tracts of land are purchased by them --- then later to be sold to foreign companies for a rather lowly price --- said foreign companies either being indirectly owned by American-based multinationals, through a chain of offshore holding companies --- or owned by foreign multinationals in tradeoff deals with American-based corporations.

Be advised that private equity firms, beginning around 2007, began buying up various telecoms around the planet. This past year we observe the retraction --- or shrinking back --- of Scandinavian news organizations. Then the Comcast deal in North America, eventually leading to iron-clad control of that Internet sector, and the retraction or shrinkage just the other day of the BBC, all leading to the global control of news content and distribution.

An example of how this works, i.e, "soft power" in America several years back: warrantless wiretapping made the front pages for several days, only each time to be knocked off the front pages by nationally organizaed immigrant marches. Said marches were organized by Spanish-language radio stations, yet no one thought to ask the obvious next question, "Who owns those Spanish-language radio stations?"

The Blackstone Group, of course. Peter G. Peterson's (and Steven Schwarzman's) private equity firm (private bank); Peterson being David Rockefeller's protege, and the Blackstone Group also being involved with the buying -- and closing -- of oil refineries to drive up the price of gas, and also involved with the privatization of prisons throughout the planet (especially in America and the UK) as well as the privatizations of hospitals, etc., and also involed with brokering the fastest and largest real estate deal in NYC history, the selling or leasing off of the World Trade Center back in 2000. Blackstone Group was also the recipient of the management of the $1 billion plus captive insurance fund, provided by the US government to the relatives of those killed on 9/11/01 in the WTC.

Always, we must always pay close attention to the details, for that is how they manipulate and bury us.

Re:Lame

[BitZtream]

We worry that kids are not engaging in politics and then arrest them when they voice concern - pffft, it is a crazy world.

Its not unreasonable to want our children to understand how politics effect them and to make an effort to proactive while at the same time expecting them to act within reason.

This wasn't a protest where they stood in front of the store and made noise, this was more along the lines of going inside and turning all the water on and clogging the drains so the store floods and no one can use it for some period of time while costing the company some sum of money.

My children know what 'reasonable response' means. Too bad you don't.

Re:Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea! Only when you're paying someone else to do it is it ok.

/non-Americans might miss this cynicism

Re:Lame

[GameboyRMH]

The only way to "be careful" is to do it from an open wifi AP or some other temporary location. You can't DDoS through a proxy.

Re:Lame

[hesaigo999ca]

Technically, this would only have made a difference, or worked, if there had been millions of users ddossing at the same time...
however, the problem lies when only a few actually go through with what is set up, and become the scape goats, so had all been using the tool, then it would not have been silencing someone you disagree with, but being heard as a big population of users that should be able to control what is happening based on volume.

If a dictator runs a country and never listens to what his people say, then he is just that a dictator...when people revolt it is a rebellion, until they succeed to which it is then considered a revolution. This is only necessary for the people to bring to an end a rule that is not what they collectively agree with....instead of a rebellion, they could go for voting, but we know how many of those are fixed, don't we...same thing here, we only hear a few things, and only the people working at wikileaks truly know what the gov. did to them, as any media outlet will be watched and controlled. or shut down....so some feel the need to band together for the greater good....they didn't steal money from a victims account, they selected particular targets that had influence on them or media....or so i have heard.

Re:Lame

[Labcoat Samurai]

I'm seeing a theme in your posts. As long as a protest is non-violent, it's A-OK. This doesn't make sense to me. Violence is just another of the four boxes (you know, from soap to ammo). In some situations, violent uprising *is* appropriate. And in some situations, extreme forms of non-violent protest like sit-ins or even DDoS attacks *could* be appropriate. But not here. These businesses did nothing wrong. They did something *unpopular* with people who appreciate what Wikileaks does. But they are well within their rights to decide with whom they do business. And deciding not to do business with them is the only right we should exercise in protest. Essentially, if the rules (i.e. laws) are fair in this matter, and they are playing by the rules, so should we.

Re:Lame

[Caraig]

Actually, I've not noticed him saying that the kids who were arrested shouldn't be punished. He's making the distinction -- and I agree with him -- that there are degrees of severity of a crime. No analogies here, but we have Murder in the Third, Second, and First degrees: each carries a higher punishment than the last. A DDoS attack is certainly against the law, but it would pale in comparison to, say, firebombing Visa's headquarters, or assassinating their board of directors. All three are still crimes, but you're not going to -- or shouldn't -- punish the kids doing the DDoS the same way you would punish the guy putting lead into peoples' heads.

They were protesting what they see as something that's wrong. Bully on them. And they got arrested for it. That's what happens when you protest and you do something illegal. They didn't start flinging Molotov Snapples, though, so they shouldn't be treated like they were.

As an aside, "And deciding not to do business with them is the only right we should exercise in protest." Well, I have to disagree. I feel corporations have far too much immunity for the wrong they commit. Mind you, I'm... ambivalent to their actions in this case. I think they were wrong, but I don't think they were illegal. Still, when corporations do all manner of unethical things, I feel there isn't enough means for people in general to, shall we say, legally influence said corporations to behave in a proper and ethical manner. What those legal means beyond 'voting with your wallet' (which has proven to not have any effect except on the smallest consumer-related businesses) might be would make for an interesting discussion.

Of course all this posturing goes to shit when it comes out that these kids were just doing it for the lulz.

Re:Lame

[Caraig]

Indeed. 15 out of (apparently) an estimated 500. I wonder how much effort -- in terms of man-hours -- was exerted to get this 3%.

Re:Lame

[Caraig]

Civil disobedience is disobeying unjust laws, and getting arrested in order to put a face to the issue. I don't think these kids were protesting that DDOS attacks should be legal. That being said, it was a pretty non-violent protest. I don't think anyone was killed by it.

Re:Lame

[Labcoat Samurai]

Actually, I've not noticed him saying that the kids who were arrested shouldn't be punished. He's making the distinction -- and I agree with him -- that there are degrees of severity of a crime. No analogies here, but we have Murder in the Third, Second, and First degrees: each carries a higher punishment than the last. A DDoS attack is certainly against the law, but it would pale in comparison to, say, firebombing Visa's headquarters, or assassinating their board of directors. All three are still crimes, but you're not going to -- or shouldn't -- punish the kids doing the DDoS the same way you would punish the guy putting lead into peoples' heads.

Oh? And it's important to write a post to make that point? Punishing the kids as though they had shot people or firebombed buildings was never on the table anyway. If that's what we were arguing about, I feel my time has been wasted.

They were protesting what they see as something that's wrong. Bully on them. And they got arrested for it. That's what happens when you protest and you do something illegal. They didn't start flinging Molotov Snapples, though, so they shouldn't be treated like they were.

I think there's some equivocation going on here. We're equivocating severity of a crime with its moral justifiability. Even a severe crime like lobbing molitov cocktails could be justifiable in the right circumstances. The two things are not inextricably linked. What I'm getting in this debate is a sense of "Yeah, they broke the law, so we technically have to punish them, but we shouldn't pass moral judgment on them." But you see, I think we're well within our rights to do so. They protested what they saw as wrong, but they did it in a way that I can not at all condone or accept. A company acted within its rights, and they stepped outside of theirs in order to fight it. What they did was wrong. I don't give a rat's ass if they didn't break any windows in the process. Violence would have been worse, but in my eyes, not fundamentally so. Only worse in magnitude.

As an aside, "And deciding not to do business with them is the only right we should exercise in protest." Well, I have to disagree. I feel corporations have far too much immunity for the wrong they commit. Mind you, I'm... ambivalent to their actions in this case. I think they were wrong, but I don't think they were illegal. Still, when corporations do all manner of unethical things, I feel there isn't enough means for people in general to, shall we say, legally influence said corporations to behave in a proper and ethical manner. What those legal means beyond 'voting with your wallet' (which has proven to not have any effect except on the smallest consumer-related businesses) might be would make for an interesting discussion.

Of course all this posturing goes to shit when it comes out that these kids were just doing it for the lulz.

I can't call PayPal's actions wrong. I can say that I don't approve. I can say that I find them troubling or even upsetting. But PayPal is within its rights legally *and* morally to choose its business partners. We are within our rights legally and morally to choose ours as well, and we are under no obligation to do business with PayPal. The fact that others do is their choice, and you, as an individual, do not have some special right that supersedes the rights of others who wish to continue doing business with PayPal.

Good guys win, bad guys lose...

[XxtraLarGe]

... and as always, England Prevails!

Re:Good guys win, bad guys lose...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and as always, England Prevails!

Just like they did around 1775-1781?

Re:Good guys win, bad guys lose...

[minasoko]

Whoosh

Re:Good guys win, bad guys lose...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tentatively accepting of this case so far - they were engaging in vigilantism, with no reasonable 'self defence' argument to be made, which most people agree is (if not always bad in terms of results) too dangerous to allow. Unfortunately, precedent suggests some serious inconsistency in sentencing when it comes to cases that catch the public eye; rather than a mid-sized fine, I can quite believe that a custodial sentence will be handed down. We shall, however, have to wait and see.

Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Met Police said the investigation was a collaborative effort between forces in the UK, EU and the US.

Do the Met not realise that the UK is part of the EU?

Re:Redundancy

[TheDarAve]

They said it like that because on occasion, its the EU or US that issues the warrant and the UK just executes it. This states that they actually had a role in the investigation besides just executing the arrest warrant.

Re:S'o Does' An Apos'trophe Follow All "s'"es' now

[Anonymous Coward]

...accused of taking part in Anonymous' DDOS attacks in support of WikiLeaks.

Who is "Anonymous" and in what way does he or she possess "DDOS attacks in support of WikiLeaks"?

Anonymous is the name of the group that organized the DDOS attack. The apostrophe use is perfectly legitimate in this case.

Re:S'o Does' An Apos'trophe Follow All "s'"es' now

[abigsmurf]

Anonymous in this context is a proper noun ending with S. To end with es would be to change their name, to end in s's would look silly.

Too many people get worked up over apostrophes anyhow. When you get to complex situations all the rules start contradicting themselves and it all falls apart. Here's a grammatical puzzle.

You have a load of copies of Stephen King's It. Using just the title (plus the appropriate apostrophe suffix) what is the possessive case of all of these books as a collective (for example if you wanted to refer to all of their pages)?

Identification?

[Anonymous Coward]

So we don't complain when the police use IP addresses to identify individuals they want to arrest, but we do when an RIAA lawyer does the same thing to find people he wishes to sue?

Double standard anyone?

Re:Identification?

[Sarten-X]

Don't worry... we'll get just as upset if the police make false claims about the fallibility of their methods, arrest people who never had LOIC on their computers, arrest hundreds of people based on the same evidence, or start extorting settlements under the threat of an expensive court case with flimsy evidence.

Re:Identification?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a slight difference Sarten. The guys in the OP will be sat in a cell now, rather than just wondering if they can find enough money to hire a solicitor to write a snotty "see you in court" letter back to ACS. Yet the validity of their identification in both cases is the same. An IP address still does not equate to a particular person, and most likely never will (unless the government were to mandate every individual being allocated their own IPv6 address range at birth).

Re:Identification?

[Sarten-X]

I am in favor of the IPv6 allocation idea, but that's another issue entirely...

Assuming no prior criminal history, bail is a very likely option. Without further evidence, acquittal is likely.

Perhaps you've forgotten the early days of the copyright-infringement lawsuits, where the evidence was taken at face value, mostly because it came out of actual investigation. Timestamps were checked against logs, and the endeavor was small enough that humans could check the evidence for sanity. When the process became more widespread is when accuracy rapidly fell off.

There's also various other changes that have helped reduce the inaccuracy as well, especially within the past few years. Wireless encryption is much more common, public access terminals are more carefully locked down, and every defense lawyer worth his salt knows what mistakes to look for.

Quite simply, nobody complains because this doesn't look like a scam.

Whoosh!!

[Anonymous Coward]

V flew right past you!

A DDoS is not helpful

[Sarten-X]

Perhaps with enough publicity from this case, the "members" of Anonymous will realize that throwing a tantrum is not useful activism. Unfortunately, it's more likely that the various police involved will be targeted next, along with their supporters, families, and barbers.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[HungryHobo]

I don't know about where you live but the protests had the effect most protests are supposed to have.

after the mastercard DoS the whole issue got splashed across most of the national papers here.
It got the issue media attention.

Also:Anon isn't known for defending their own.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that sounds like a good plan!

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[RazzleFrog]

And what changed as a result of this protest? Have other people stopped using Mastercard or PayPal now that their attention has been drawn to it or are people thinking - those pain the behind kids prevented me from doing what I needed to do for a day or two.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[Grumbleduke]

While I agree with you that DDoSes are somewhat childish, pointless and rather stupid, Anonymous did manage to achieve quite a lot of publicity and did (however briefly) make a difference.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[HungryHobo]

Wow.
you really haven't been keeping up with the news.
it drew so much attention to the issue that in at least one country mastercard is being dragged over the coals by regulators.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-visa-licenses-revoked-iceland-wikileaks/

which may lead to them no longer being allowed do buisness in an entire country.
Without the Anon protests the issue wouldn't have hit the headlines and the politicians/regulators would almost certainly never heard of it.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[RazzleFrog]

First I don't buy for even a second that the protests are what brought this to the regulators attention. Second, we are talking about Iceland - not exactly a country that is going to bankrupt mastercard or visa by banning them.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[godefroi]

I don't know about where you live but the protests had the effect most protests are supposed to have.

Getting the protesters arrested? That's pretty much all I noticed happening.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[HungryHobo]

why not? without the protests getting it splashed across the front pages it would have stayed boring nerd news.

Right, so protesters shouldn't bother protesting anything unless it might cause the company involved to be banned from trading in a big country. check.

out of interest could you give me some examples of protests you think actually suceeded?
I mean ones where they had more effect than possibly leading to the company possibly being banned from trading in an entire country and which you can conclusively prove where the actual cause.

I'd be interested in how you go about proving that your example protests were the causes of the changes in question since as far as I can see your claims are utterly unfalsifiable.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[HungryHobo]

it got enough attention on the issue for this to happen:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-visa-licenses-revoked-iceland-wikileaks/

without the protests mastercards involvement would have been nothing but dull boring nerd news and almost nobody would have heard about it.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[trollertron3000]

Anon really can't defend their own because that would expose them. It's also so loosely coupled it really is just a social movement more than a led effort. There are community leaders but people in anonymous do what they want.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[RazzleFrog]

Wikileaks was nerd news? It was mainstream news all over the world for MONTHS before this attack happened. I think you put way too much importance on this attack. I mean these kids wouldn't even known to attack these places if it hadn't already been mainstream news.

And successful protests? Honestly there are very, very few in the last couple of decades on a scale you are talking about. Employees rights at the turn of the century along with women's rights and civil rights come to my mind. Nowadays most protests are very shortsighted and misdirected.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Worked well for African Americans fighting against segregation. Sit ins, preventing paying customers from using a restaurant in order to promote an idea and force change for the better is not really different from DDOS. Same principle, at least in my mind.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[HungryHobo]

on scale I'm talking about? no no no good sir.that insanely high scale was the bar that you set.
apparently the posibility of being banned in only one country wasn't good enough.

wikileaks was news. mastercard refusing to do buisness with them was a footnote that didn't even make it into most newspapers until Anon protested it.

So anyway. given your eariler insistence that you don't believe for one second that the icelandics regulator thing had anything to do with the anonymous protests please prove to the level which you personally would accept that the protests about employees rights at the turn of the century along with women's rights and civil rights were conclusively the result of those protests and not just something that happened to happen shortly after.

I just want to get an idea what you personally will accept as proof.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[HungryHobo]

Correction: *the reforms in womens right, civil rights etc were the result of*

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[carpefishus]

Sounds a bit like terroism. eh?

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

And what changed after all the colored people congregated in DC? Nothing. So were they just wasting their time?

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[jeff4747]

So it got enough attention for Iceland to grand a monopoly to Discover.

Yay?

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[jonbryce]

And that entire country is the size of a parish council in most parts of the world.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[Sarten-X]

There are a few key differences. First, the sit-ins only directly affected the ones responsible for the offense, such as the restaurant itself. The employees still got paid for the day (except tips, of which I'm conveniently ignorant of the day's standards). Other restaurants that were not segregated did not suffer from the protest. In contrast, the DDoS affected all Mastercard customers, regardless of their views regarding Wikileaks.

Second, sit-ins, petitions, and speeches all present an identity and reputation with the action. I've been out protesting, holding a sign in front of a library, and I was recognized. There was a risk to my own reputation, and that is what I donated to the cause. Anonymous is anonymous. Their attacks are simply attacks, and do not carry any endorsement beyond the childish claim of being able to hit harder.

Finally, most sit-ins are legal. No laws are broken, but only establishment policies to raise awareness and provide pressure for change within the bounds of the law. DDoS's are prohibited by various legislation around the globe. Rather than saying "we want to work for change", a DDoS says "we want to force change, and don't care about anything in the way".

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[Sarten-X]

Without the Anonymous DDoS, the issue could have been handled by some nice letters and petitions, instead. That wouldn't have disrupted service to Mastercard customers, and wouldn't consist of breaking laws around the world. It'd still result in properly-zealous regulators looking for legal violations.

Hence why I say the DDoS wasn't a protest. It was a tantrum by a bunch of children. There are established mechanisms for protest that do not involve collateral damage.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[Caraig]

Without the Anonymous DDoS, the issue could have been handled by some nice letters and petitions, instead.

While I agree that the DDOS was illegal and arrests and sentencing is justified... are you serious? Since when in recent memory has any petition by mere unincorporated people, or any letters to a corporation by same, resulted in anything? Corps only change their mind only if they think it's almost too late. I have yet to see any such beast mend their ways after a mere letter-writing campaign. If you have some good high-profile examples of a multinational listening to a petition or to peoples' letters and actually changing in some meaningful way, I really would love to hear it; as it is, my faith in corporations is pretty damn low.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[Sarten-X]

Offhand, a protest I participated in during 2009 helped reduce a 30% budget cut for libraries down to 10%. Every three years, the Librarian of Congress determines DMCA exceptions, primarily based on public letters. A bit more research shows many successful protests. These companies rely on either being necessary or popular. Make a protest visible enough, and they'll change their minds.

Re:A DDoS is not helpful

[godefroi]

Mastercard's involvement is STILL dull boring news.

Interesting

[symes]

As far as I can tell, not one of these individuals can be charged under the Computer Misuse Act (but IANAL) - the DDOS was effectively reaslised across many individuals whose net effect was a DDOS. Further, surely they could claim that their action was simply an expression of their right to free assembly? Anyone any insights here?

Re:Interesting

[ledow]

Quoting from the section headed: "Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer, etc."

(2) This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the actâ"

(a) to impair the operation of any computer;

(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer;

(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data; or

(d) to enable any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above to be done.

Just intent to slow down a website, or prevent other people accessing it, or even ENABLING people to intend to impair it's operation (e.g. distributing click-and-point tools and encouraging people to aim them at websites).

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Psychopath]

As far as I can tell, not one of these individuals can be charged under the Computer Misuse Act (but IANAL) - the DDOS was effectively reaslised across many individuals whose net effect was a DDOS. Further, surely they could claim that their action was simply an expression of their right to free assembly? Anyone any insights here?

DDOS attacks are malicious in nature and designed to harm a target. It would be difficult to convince a reasonable person that they are equitable to a peaceful assembly. A better analogy would be to compare it to a mob riot.

Re:Interesting

[ikkonoishi]

I'm pretty sure that intent matters. There is no law against holding a ladder, but when the cop catches you holding a ladder that someone is breaking into a store with you will be arrested too.

Re:Interesting

[HungryHobo]

well there was some article written by an american lawyer talking about the issue with a DDoS being that each individual step is perfectly legal: you have every right to send a SYN to the server and only in agregate does it lead to any kind of effect.

There's even a legit debate that it falls under "non-violent political protest" since it's done as a protest about a political issue in an utterly non-violent manner which does no physical damage to any property.

It's not taking over a computer or taking access to anything you aren't allowed access so while IANAL it might be somewhat hard to prosecute.

Re:Interesting

[ledow]

(sorry - missed off last bit of the sentence)

Just intent to slow down a website, or prevent other people accessing it, or even ENABLING people to intend to impair it's operation (e.g. distributing click-and-point tools and encouraging people to aim them at websites) is enough to get you charged under that act and imprisoned for a long time if proven in court.

Re:Interesting

[RazzleFrog]

Don't almost all DDoS attacks use hacked computers as part of their attack?

Re:Interesting

[HungryHobo]

sure, most DDoS attacks do but unless these kids were botnet herders that isn't really an issue.
I heard that some botnet got involved but again, not really an issue.

If you turn up to a protest you aren't automatically legally liable for the actions of some other person who shows up and throws rocks.

The anon protests used the LOIC software which is a volentary botnet.

Re:Interesting

[Grumbleduke]

For those interested, the relevant part is Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if... (a) he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer, (b) at the time when he does the act he knows that it is unauthorised; and..." he intends "(2)(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer;".

It doesn't need to be aimed at any particular data, computer etc. (4), "causing the acts to be done" is enough (5)(b) and the effects can be temporary (5)(c).

That sounds quite a bit like a DDoS attack to me (I am a law student, but not a real lawyer).

Oh, and if you plead guilty, you get at most 12 months in prison (6 months in Scotland - I guess because they don't have real computers up there). If you actually go to trial, that jumps up to 10 years. Bearing in mind that a jury system has at least an 83% uncertainty, it is actually better to plead guilty even if innocent.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Where on earth did that idea come from.. that a DDOS is harmful? Pull my other leg.

A mob riot ends with, thanks to things being thrown/burned/etc, damaged property. A DDOS *is* like a sit-in protest since it interferes with ongoing activity, but causes no damage - whether from magically electrocuting someone via TCP/IP or by somehow abusing ICMP flood in order to delete files - since it's not possible.

Is it 'peaceful'? Arguably not, in the minds of some people... but think through your analogy again, since it's not violent like your riot imagery.

Re:Interesting

[Nadaka]

Yes. Just like a mob riot. Except without the threat of permanent property damage. Except without the threat or possibility of bodily harm.

Re:Interesting

[Nadaka]

Depending on the jurisdiction, you can be held responsible for the actions of anyone in a protest by a number of means.

Re:Interesting

[HungryHobo]

in those juristictions it must be really really easy to get any protesters you don't like arrested.

Pay someone cash to turn up with a firebomb and voila, all the protesters you want rid off get the blame.

Re:Interesting

[VortexCortex]

As far as I can tell, not one of these individuals can be charged under the Computer Misuse Act (but IANAL) - the DDOS was effectively reaslised across many individuals whose net effect was a DDOS. Further, surely they could claim that their action was simply an expression of their right to free assembly? Anyone any insights here?

DDOS attacks are malicious in nature and designed to harm a target. It would be difficult to convince a reasonable person that they are equitable to a peaceful assembly. A better analogy would be to compare it to a mob riot.

Except that in a mob riot physical property can get destroyed, people can be injured or killed -- it's not the same.

Normally when a person goes to a store, they do not linger, their presence is transient; Protesters have a less transient presence -- Their presence is felt by customers who would enter the store for a while, but not permanently; Some customers may be turned away, but no one should be injured.

When all you have is the Internet, every thing looks like a packet. You can't protest in front of say, Mastercard.com. The only presence you have is your web traffic. It's not like the packets sent by LOIC were maliciously crafted -- the alleged "attack toolkit" was very ineffective as one; It was intended to be used as a protest toolkit (Intent should be considered). The protest toolkit didn't attempt to hide the identities of those involved, LOIC didn't infect and use people's machines without permission (as bot-nets do), and it didn't perform a reflected attack to multiply its effect -- Each participant only contributed their own presence (web traffic).

The protest's web traffic was felt by those who would enter the affected web site for a while, but not permanently; Some visitors were turned away, but no one was injured.

Some visitors could not just ignore the protest and enter the web site, much like how a large enough real life protest may cause drivers to pause momentarily, the combined effect, known as rubbernecking, can cause temporary vehicle traffic problems which could prevent a customer from ignoring the protests effects.

To me, Anonymous' digital protest has a lot more similarities to a real life peaceful protest than to an angry mob setting fires to cars, smashing windows, looting, and killing or injuring innocent bystanders; The protests were very different than a bot-net controlled by a small number of malcontents which infects thousands of machines against the will of their owners and uses them in a (R(D))DOS attack.

Anonymous participants intended to protest digitally.
When all you have is a hammer... Well, all they had was the Internet.

Re:Interesting

[jgtg32a]

I was under the impression that intent played a significant part in law?

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

(sorry - missed off last bit of the sentence)

Just intent to slow down a website, or prevent other people accessing it, or even ENABLING people to intend to impair it's operation (e.g. distributing click-and-point tools and encouraging people to aim them at websites) is enough to get you charged under that act and imprisoned for a long time if proven in court.

So if I post a link on /. (or digg or reddit whatever) that brings a site to it's knees /. could also charged for 'ENABLING people to intend to impair it's operation'. Sounds like an asshat law to me

Re:Interesting

[HungryHobo]

sure but traditionally
"I intend to disrupt their buisness with non-violent actions to draw attention to their immoral activities"

is given more leeway than

"I intend to make them pay me money to make me stop doing this"

as far as intent goes and the latter is a more common use of DDoS attacks.

Re:Interesting

[bamwham]

Do the English have a right to free assembly? I honestly don't know, it isn't listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Psychopath]

As far as I can tell, not one of these individuals can be charged under the Computer Misuse Act (but IANAL) - the DDOS was effectively reaslised across many individuals whose net effect was a DDOS. Further, surely they could claim that their action was simply an expression of their right to free assembly? Anyone any insights here?

DDOS attacks are malicious in nature and designed to harm a target. It would be difficult to convince a reasonable person that they are equitable to a peaceful assembly. A better analogy would be to compare it to a mob riot.

Except that in a mob riot physical property can get destroyed, people can be injured or killed -- it's not the same.

Normally when a person goes to a store, they do not linger, their presence is transient; Protesters have a less transient presence -- Their presence is felt by customers who would enter the store for a while, but not permanently; Some customers may be turned away, but no one should be injured.

When all you have is the Internet, every thing looks like a packet. You can't protest in front of say, Mastercard.com. The only presence you have is your web traffic. It's not like the packets sent by LOIC were maliciously crafted -- the alleged "attack toolkit" was very ineffective as one; It was intended to be used as a protest toolkit (Intent should be considered). The protest toolkit didn't attempt to hide the identities of those involved, LOIC didn't infect and use people's machines without permission (as bot-nets do), and it didn't perform a reflected attack to multiply its effect -- Each participant only contributed their own presence (web traffic).

The protest's web traffic was felt by those who would enter the affected web site for a while, but not permanently; Some visitors were turned away, but no one was injured.

Some visitors could not just ignore the protest and enter the web site, much like how a large enough real life protest may cause drivers to pause momentarily, the combined effect, known as rubbernecking, can cause temporary vehicle traffic problems which could prevent a customer from ignoring the protests effects.

To me, Anonymous' digital protest has a lot more similarities to a real life peaceful protest than to an angry mob setting fires to cars, smashing windows, looting, and killing or injuring innocent bystanders; The protests were very different than a bot-net controlled by a small number of malcontents which infects thousands of machines against the will of their owners and uses them in a (R(D))DOS attack.

Anonymous participants intended to protest digitally.
When all you have is a hammer... Well, all they had was the Internet.

I understand the differences between a DDOS and an actual riot. Perhaps I should have said metaphor rather than analogy. I was attempting to explain my perception that DDOS is nothing more than digital vandalism. After all, it's commonly used as a tool for extortion, even if the intent was different in this case.

Why would you say that all they had was the Internet? Did actual protesting where one has to actually get up off of their ass, out of their chair and actually go somewhere suddenly become impossible? DDOS as a tool for positive change is about as effective as online petitions. Probably less so.

Re:Interesting

[jeff4747]

It's not given more leeway. The latter example means you're charged with an additional crime.

Re:Interesting

[Caraig]

In some parts of the world -- including, if some people on the left and the right are to be believed, in the US -- this is a lot more common than people think, or than most media outlets look into.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Vandalism is a flawed metaphor for the same reasons. Try again.

Plenty more people would have gone to rallies than taken part in the DDoS. If anything, wouldn't it be fairer to ask "why are all those protesters standing around rather than generating indirect newsworthiness for their cause?".. I suggest that's a more worthy question, seeing as there was a net increase in attention.

Re:Interesting

[Nadaka]

Correct, the conspiracy, accomplice and incitation laws do this in addition to the generic fillers like resisting arrest, failure to comply with a lawful order, interfering with a police investigation, public disturbance, etc.

Free Speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you block the right for someone to speak on the internet you are not allowing them to express their free speech. No matter what they are saying they should have the right to say what they want. Does that make what they are saying right? Hell no. However it is hypocritical to say you are attacking websites in the name of free speech by not allowing them to express free speech.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:S'o Does' An Apos'trophe Follow All "s'"es' now

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there actually an agreed-upon answer to that puzzle? I'm kind of curious now...

Poor you...

[Anonymous Coward]

...with your freedom to do business sooo curtailed by Bad, Bad Anonymous.

Look, man. I don't approve of Anonymous' methods, but there are Bad Guys so big and bad around there that I'll prefer to have other worries.

I, for one, will put up with any Anonymous, spammers, whatever if anyone manages to put down Monsanto (just to name one among legion).

Grats

[jimmerz28]

I bet they think they're going to get a lot of information out of these boys/guys to find out who's the brain behind the operation!

Re:S'o Does' An Apos'trophe Follow All "s'"es' now

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks wow. It seems I fail at RTFA.

good job

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah throw some nasty kids in jail while the adults are in charge.
See, they should of been doing
large scale commercial voicemail hacking (and making serious backs from it) as that doesn't seem to even get the police to blink up let alone having their door kicked in at 5am by 12 police in full riot gear and the contents of your house/pc seized or whatever they find turning your house over for evidence, while you in front of the kids are thrown in the back of a cold van in cuffs (while being filmed for the latest COPS show) and whisked off down the local nick for 3 days of questioning like we usually see when they arrest menaces to society.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/27/police-phone-hacking-scandal-history

or maybe plebs don't have the right friends?

Re:good job

[jgtg32a]

Or maybe they were idiots and were really easy to catch.

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[Obyron]

Perhaps with enough publicity from this case, the "members" of the NAACP will realize that throwing a tantrum is not useful activism. Unfortunately, it's more likely that the various police involved will be targeted next, along with their supporters, families, and barbers.

LOIC cannot work anonymously

[Ricardo]

LOIC (Low Earth Ion Canon) has a catchy name, and has a cool cache among people who dont know much, but it floods the target with packets from your IP address, there is no external vector, so there is no way of hiding your IP address..

maybe the members of anonymous should have checked that

I was shocked when I found this out (Steve Gibson's "Security Now" podcast)

What did they think would happen?

This should be a strong warning to people who think of using LOIC.

Re:LOIC cannot work anonymously

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea, it seems, was not to kill websites from the shadows. It was to have a visibly-large collective embark on a political protest.

If there was any aim for anonymity to it, I saw none (aside from silly "lie, say it was malware" suggestions, which sensible people would laugh off). Clearly there weren't enough protesters in the UK to blend in with the crowd, and well.. with the UK you'd expect 50 through 5000 arrests anyway.

Anonymity isn't everything, especially when you're taking a stand.

Re:LOIC cannot work anonymously

[jgtg32a]

Really I can respect that then, assuming that they are willing to accept their punishment

Re:S'o Does' An Apos'trophe Follow All "s'"es' now

[abigsmurf]

I don't know the answer for sure, would probably take an professor of English to give a concrete answer, I believe the answer is probably Its' though.

Why do the Met go 'round in threes?

[Anonymous Coward]

One to read, one to write, and one to keep an eye on the other two subversive intellectuals.

Idiots...

[cheekyjohnson]

They should not have used a tool that made their identities so obvious. So nothing of value was lost.

Great news

[das3cr]

They need to be able to track down cyber criminals and bring them to justice. Hopefully they are sentenced to 10 years hard labor and never being able to have a computer again.

thanks anon

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to thank anon for this chemo

Re: I wonder...

[Isaac Remuant]

Would it be any different if a large group of people manually clicked refresh or something similar?

The intent would definetly be there.

until you block someone else's same right

[peter303]

That criminalizes DOS strategy then.

Nope, it's called "reason".

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, it's called "reason". If I want you to NOT kill my little daughter and I have a gun whilst you are near her armed, I will shoot you in the head.

Killing to preserve life.

It's kind of common in the armed forces and doesn't generally get called "hypocrisy". But go ahead and use it on the Army if you like.

Re:Nope, it's called "reason".

[Duradin]

How many cops have you killed? (Or do you want the cops to kill your daughter?)

Bookem Dano

[4phun]

Book them Dano.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[trollertron3000]

Your comparison is off base because the NAACP doesn't break the law in their efforts.

A good comparison would be the Irish Republican Army. Sure they fought for their freedoms, but the methods they used were barbaric. Tossing a grenade at a funeral is outrageous, regardless of how you've been treated. Just like this anonymous attack is.

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[trollertron3000]

Just an amendment, it was actually the UDA, a more extreme extension of those that were originally in the IRA.

Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[unity100]

for every one of people as such you arrest or attempt to repress, you generate thousands more of them in their image, by making them heroes as such in the others' eyes.

the time that people are suppressed by 'making an example of' any among them, are long past. 20-21st century generations become increasingly more rebellious as you attempt to repress them.

serves you right though. this is exactly what you should be doing.

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

20-21st century generations become increasingly more rebellious as you attempt to repress them.

Oh yeah, we're getting sooooo rebellious. Hell, just the other day, when there were three sheriff's parked near my condo walking up and down our street checking registration tags on parked cars, my neighbors got so rebellious that, in a single act of defiance, they agreed to sit down to dinner with their families in front of the latest episode of America Idol. Amazing isn't it? We're really itching for a scrappin' as a society.

It's funny, growing up, I used to follow the third wave punk scene and then some of the later metal and hardcore scenes. There was always an abundance of idealistic, angsty young men and women that wanted to burn the man and overthrow the powers that be. It inspired me. It made me feel like I was part of something important. Then, as I got older, I watched those same idealistic young men and women drink themselves into stupidity, knock each other up and struggle with unplanned parenthood, spit on the wrong cop and get thrown in jail, and so on and so on and so on. So much for the revolution.

Look, I'll agree with you that people are pissed off. I'll even agree with you that there are some folk out there that want to do something to enact change. But I have to take a contrary stance to your idea that people are becoming increasingly more rebellious. We aren't. For fuck's sake, we have folks groping us in airports, three letter agencies spying on every packet of communication we make, our constitutional rights like habeus corpus being suspended, and, hell, fellow citizens being arrested and held indefinitely without trial and we aren't doing shit about it as a society.

When it comes right down to it we are a society that likes to talk shit but keep quiet when the risk of getting hit pops up. And I do realize the self-irony of this post being made to slashdot. But as someone who makes a point to hang out with folk in both high and low places, I can tell you that the mass majority of the population, at least here in the States, is too lazy, too scared, and too apologetic to rebel against shit in any meaningful way. Anonymous and the recent DDOS attacks are nothing more than a bunch of hormone fueled, pissed off pranksters that will pat themselves on the back for being activists and then go back home to flip on the tele and curl up in their Snuggies at night. We aren't going to rebel against shit when it matters. Few are willing to pick up arms. Fewer are willing to give up their clean water and food supplies. Nobody is going to overthrow our government and corporate overlords. The only way this whole system is going to crash is due to the sheer incompetency and stupidity of those already in power.

That may sound like a shitty, cynical attitude, but I am only 25 years old, and I have already lost any faith I had in my species to take a stance that requires a spine and a strong jaw when it comes to anything meaningful. We're living in a time of pacifists, cowards, and political correctness, not one of blood, anger, zeal, and revolution.

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[unity100]

you have various valid points. however, i am 35 years old, and i am seeing things you are not noticing yet. the world is already quite a different place when i was 15 years old.

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh really?

10-15 years ago, people would protest in the streets if there was a bad decision. However, the latest mass scale protect in the US was in '03, before the invasion of Iraq.

People don't protest anymore in ways that actually might matter. They whine on a blog, click "like" on a Facebook group, and sign a petition.

The younger generations are very easy to keep in line, and anyone who steps across will be blacklisted forever in NCIC reports and credit records, and never be able to get gainful employment. Any police officer with a camera that does facial recognition can find those people in a crowd and hold them for preventative measures.

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[jeff4747]

Yes, the terrible, terrible repression of not being able to DDoS. I'm sure there will be an angry mob any minute now demanding that our right to disrupt web traffic be protected at all costs.

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[jeff4747]

Yes, back when we were 15 years old, people would riot to display their anger at the government. Now they click 'Like' on Facebook to stick it to the man.

All those likes will surely cause massive change soon!

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[unity100]

however, now, they are able to find/hear/see whatever their government would prevent them from seeing/hearing, unlike how it was back when you were 15. there is internet.

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[unity100]

then they are being kept subdued through the system. it is the system that is the culprit here then. anyone subscribing to anything that system provides perpetuate the system .

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Yeah, the government and various companies have been working on patching that hole in the dike. Not a lot of people seem to be paying attention save those of us here on slashdot.

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[unity100]

well. we will see.

thats people's fault actually. they ascribe to the capitalist system, which places no restraints on how much economic power an individual or a group of individuals (or an entity in the name of a corporation) can get, then just expect the system to work as 'equals' in political spectrum too.

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Indeed. Que sera sera.

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[Caraig]

If what's coming out of Yemen and Egypt is to be believed, and the events in Iran two years ago, that's actually more or less what's happening.

Of course, after clicking 'Like' they go out on ten-thousand-person protest marches through the capitol and get gassed by the police, but there you go.

GP is pretty right on the money; twenty years ago, things were quite different. We scoff at Facebook and Twitter but there have been some interesting, actual events that may have been enabled by social networking, and certainly were enabled by the Internet and cellular phones.

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[jeff4747]

Doesn't matter when seeing/hearing that results in nothing more than online protests. For example, Anonymous hasn't accomplished anything useful.

Re:Morons. This is not 1100 AD.

[jeff4747]

Protests were organized long before the Internet. To say that they're doing it only because social media exists is an insult to the people getting gassed by police.

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[Dachannien]

Perhaps with enough publicity from this case, the "members" of Slashdot will realize that using a straw man argument is not useful activism. Unfortunately, it's more likely that the various police involved will be targeted next, along with their supporters, families, and farmers.

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[Obyron]

Are you trying to say that transparency of government is not an important enough topic to protest?

ryan clearly - the anonymous ddosser

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they got this sucker called Ryan Clearly. This "anonymous" bastard ddossed 4chan a long time ago, was connected with mariposa botnet & still continues to ddos random online communities unrelated to anonymous's usual targets and extort them for money and special privileges.

Time to grow up a little.

[westlake]

So they sit on there arses while billions of pounds of financial cybercrimes are committed, trillions of spam sent, and then arrest some 15 year old for hurling a few packets in the name of free speech - fucking lame.

Cops can multi-task.

Computer Crime News Releases - 2010

Here is the smallest of samplings:

E-mail threats to the Vice-President.
Five of sixteen U.S. defendants plead guilty for their role in "Lost Boy" child pornography ring
Theft of trade secrets from Goldman-Sachs
Operator of luxury eyeware website charged with cyberstalking, threats and fraud
Extradited hacker gets 10 years for first-ever hack into Internet phone networks.
Orange County man arrested on federal charges related to demands for sexually explicit videos from women and teenage girls. (Hacking into computers for purposes of extortion)

Re:Time to grow up a little.

[MrL0G1C]

Theft of trade secrets from Goldman-Sachs

Ironic that you should bring that up, Goldman are some of the biggest organised criminals the world has ever seen, working with the government to shaft the public - who will now be paying even more taxes to pay for the mess Goldman helped to create and profited from and is still profiting from.

Wrong wrong wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a shop keeper then no problem. Don't put the message up in the window.

But a few large corporations control the means of communication to the population at large. When they refuse to carry a story or reveal certain information it isn't a personal matter. It is censorship.

The same goes for companies which handle payments. If I am forced to live in a world where payments have to be made by card then some company or other must handle the payments. It shouldn't be up to the card companies what can and what cannot be paid for.

If we took your view as our guide, the big corporations would force us all to live the lives they wanted us to live.

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Just an amendment, it was actually the UDA, a more extreme extension of those that were originally in the IRA.

And the apologists will be quick to note that "Anonymous" is just a more extreme extension of 4chan, yet that's going to do nothing to change the facts that they're a part of 4chan and 4chan does some pretty shady stuff otherwise.

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[devleopard]

Totally insulting to the freedom fighters of the Civil Rights movement. They were battling government; Anonymous is battling companies that refuse to do business with a *website*. More importantly, the activists of the Civil Rights movement knew the potential punishment for their actions and were more than willing (I dare say proud) to pay the price for the potential freedom gained. Every time a member of Anonymous gets arrested, the Internet lets out a collection WAAAH!! Lastly, they weren't ANONYMOUS (cowards).. they had the courage to put their face out there. Assange is definitely no MLK Jr.. on his best day, he's Farakhan on his worst day.

Not aware of the proper attack sequence, is all

[sgt_doom]

If a significant amount of online protesters using LOIC were at public wi-fi access points, the ones utilizing DHCP, where rotating IP addresses were assigned --- as opposed to those places with static or frozen IP assigned address --- they can only conceivably track back to the public place, not the individual online activists and protesters. Always -- when possible -- avail yourself of those public access points. And a thousand thanks to everyone involved.

A valuable lesson

[Beelzebud]

This is why you don't just blindly do what people tell you to do. An attack like this could have easily have been pulled off in a manner where the people doing it would actually stay, you know, anonymous. Instead you have one guy that knows how to code up a sloppy DDOS app, and a bunch of lemmings that will use it on their networks, without any idea what its actually doing, or how to mask their identity.

Sarten-X --- agent for the global banksters

[sgt_doom]

They have a "legal right" to do anything they want when they buy up corrupt politicians and get their "laws" passed, douchey!

Try reading some predatory legislation passed in America (should you be American, or whatever country you be a citizen of) and predatory jurisprudence handed down.

When one equates justifiable protest with a "tantrum" one has displayed their true colors -- and yours are the colors of the demonic one.

The Social Singularity occurred when the transnational corporate class assumed almost mythic power over the rest of us --- and the Social Singularity Pushback is Wikileaks. Grow a brain, dood!

Re:Sarten-X --- agent for the global banksters

[Sarten-X]

Alright, "dood".

Justifiable protest would include such simple things as writing and signing petitions, voting in elections, and contacting representatives. Each of those comes with a name and a reputation attached. On the more disruptive side of the scale, we have things like sit-ins and picketing, which usually involve breaking a particular establishment's rules, but no governmental laws.

Blowing up a brick-and-mortar store because they don't sell your favorite brand of toothpaste is not a justifiable protest. It's a crime. No matter how much publicity it generates, a large proportion of the discussion will revolve around the crime, not the vital toothpaste issue.

Likewise, anyone wanting to protest the persecution of Wikileaks has other avenues to pursue. At minimum, there are petitions to sign, representatives to contact, and public venues at which to speak. If someone really cares enough, they could donate funds to Julian Assange's defense directly, or simply follow the parade of companies that still support Wikileaks. There is no need to resort to brutal attacks against companies, and certainly no justification for calling such immaturity a legitimate protest.

Sorry to disrupt your tinfoil hat, but my objections have nothing to do with this being about Wikileaks. I guess I'm just so "demonic" that I enjoy having peaceful options for protest, and expect others to follow them.

Re:Sarten-X --- agent for the global banksters

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooooooooooohhhh.....sign a petition, sign his butt.....sign a petition sign his butt....he wants everybody to sign his butt....ooooohhhhh...sign this....oooohhh sign that. Make some sense, or don't bother to reply.

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[HungryHobo]

there is so much wrong with your godawful posts but lets start with the 2 worst bits.

1:
non-violent political protest, in this case sending a lot of packets to keep a server from being able to communicate=! violent armed terrorism.

2:
the UDA is not "a more extreme extension of those that were originally in the IRA.".
The UDA is the Ulster Defence Association, a loyalist group. they are the enemies of the IRA.

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[orgelspieler]

Your comparison is off base because the NAACP doesn't break the law in their efforts.

A good comparison would be the Irish Republican Army. Sure they fought for their freedoms, but the methods they used were barbaric. Tossing a grenade at a funeral is outrageous, regardless of how you've been treated. Just like this anonymous attack is.

Now you're the one whose comparisons are way off base. Anonymous didn't kill anybody. They didn't even get anybody hurt.

And the other part of your assessment is wrong, too. Look at the history of the NAACP, and you'll find they've been breaking unjust laws since 1909, and getting arrested, beaten, and/or lynched because of it. Dining with white people, trying to vote, drinking from the white's water fountain, not sitting at the back of the bus; these were all broken laws.

Of course now that I see your username, I realize I have been trolled. Nicely done!

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[HungryHobo]

Enough of the romanticism.
Plenty of people at political protests cover their faces.
Sometimes with good cause.
The boston tea party involved people in disguise protesting a trivial tax.

If mastercard had just cut off some random website then nobody would care, when that site is a journalistic entity which one of the worlds largest governments is trying to shut down and the governmnet in question is enlisting the "voluntary" help of the company in question there's good reason to care and it's not surprising it attracted some ire.

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[Duradin]

Trivial?

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[HungryHobo]

sure, everything except the tax on tea was removed.
the tea tax was only left as a token to assert "the right of taxing the Americans" and wasn't terribly high.

Owning copyright on documents

[sabt-pestnu]

Which particular documents are you referring to?

If they are US government documents, then you are incorrect. The US cannot hold copyright on the work product of US employees performing their official duties. While exemptions exist (eg USPS, postage stamps), much of the works leaked by wikileaks would not be covered.

This doesn't cover state governments, foreign governments, or private corporations. But as I understand it, it IS the US government documents and media that we're talking about here.

Re:Owning copyright on documents

[Americano]

Except you didn't bother to read the Terms of Use, where Amazon states the following:

You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content, including any Third Party Software, that you post; that the content is accurate; that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity; and that you will indemnify AWS for all claims resulting from content you supply. AWS has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any activity or content. AWS takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any content posted by you or any third party.

Please tell me how Wikileaks "owns or otherwise controls all of the rights to the content, including any Third Party Software, that" they posted?

Government documents are not copyrighted as such - this does not mean that every document produced by the government is freely available with no restrictions. If Wikileaks doesn't own the documents, and the government has restricted access to the documents so that providing Wikileaks with the documents is a crime, then Amazon's conclusion that the posting of these documents by Wikileaks violates their Terms of Use is absolutely a direct logical consequence.

Re:A sit-in is not helpful

[trollertron3000]

Well i might have been wrong but you're an asshole. I can get the right facts, but you'll still be an asshole.

Five?

[dubsnipe]

A three-country super alliance manages to catch five kids. Way to go.