Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Executes 40 Search Warrants For 'Anonymous'

Posted by Soulskill on from the that's-a-lot-of-john-does dept.

CWmike writes "Police agencies worldwide are turning up the heat on a loosely organized group of WikiLeaks activists. After yesterday's news that UK police arrested five people, US authorities announced that more than 40 search warrants have been executed in the US in connection with last month's Web-based attacks against companies that had severed ties with WikiLeaks. Investigations are also ongoing in the Netherlands, Germany and France, the FBI said Thursday. Acting on information from German authorities, the FBI raided Dallas ISP Tailor Made Services last month, looking for evidence relating to one of the chat servers used by Anonymous. Another server was traced to Fremont, California's Hurricane Electric. On Thursday, a Web page used by Anonymous to coordinate this latest round of DDoS attacks was offline, and the group's Twitter and Blogspot pages were silent." Reader Ajehals contributes a link to the UK Pirate Party's explanation of how the law applies to DDoS attacks.

3 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Re:FBI by westlake · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's nice to know that when corporate interests are threatened, the US Government is more than willing to come to the rescue and do their bidding. Of course, when Goldman Sachs lies, cheats, and defrauds the American people, the US government looks the other way.

    Taxpayers Earn +23% on Goldman Sachs TARP Repayment

  2. Re:Website access is not unauthorized by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Informative

    You are not using their store without authorization (they have to TELL YOU TO LEAVE before they have any legal relief for your being there).

    Citation needed. Really. I can pretty much guarantee that a group of 100 would be charged without necessarily being asked to leave. Tresspass, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace... the particular charge would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; but don't mistake private damage control with a legal requirement.

    The problem with calling a DDOS "unauthorized access" is that the access is implicitly authorized by the server being on the internet.

    No, since you're implying that the implicit authorization is unlimited rather than limited to expected or customary activities. Want a REAL real world example? Student newspaper theft. You are implicitly allowed to take one free paper (or, practically, a few) due to the papers being set out in a kiosk or bin. You are not allowed to take every paper with the intent of preventing others from obtaining them or the paper delivering them. Really. You don't have to be told not to do it.

    You can be charged with a crime for taking something that is being given away for free when you exceed the scope of an implicit authorization, and you can be charged with a crime for entering into locations that exceed the scope of an implicit authorization. Really. You don't have to be told not to do something unusual.

    There is nothing magical about a DDOS when it comes to the explicit or implicit authorization that you may have to interact with someone else's computers and services. It's criminal. You damn well know it. Protest is not a legal justification; so welcome to the real world, where you may end up with a criminal record no matter how worthy you, rather than society at large, believe your cause to be.

  3. Re:During arrest by Kvasio · · Score: 3, Informative

    yep, he was previously know as Bobby Tables