Slashdot Mirror


FBI Executes 40 Search Warrants For 'Anonymous'

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.

10 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Re:When will they learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe they do realize but don't care? Their goal here is not to "take down anonymous" it's to prosecute the specific people who broke the law by organizing the DDoS attacks. Whether that means arresting all of anonymous or 1/10000 of it is irrelevant. Note that their warrant did not come from some generic anonymous IRC channel, but the logs of the actual coordination of the attacks.

  2. Re:When will they learn? by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do they not realize the dynamic structure of anonymous? That an activist involved in one campaign might not be involved, or indeed care about, the next?

    The hint is in the article: "loosely organized".

    This isn't about punishment, it's about deterrence. Remove the sense of anonymous invulnerability and some will think twice about engaging in the activity, even if they got away with it before. It moves from a mindset of "there can't be consequences" to a mindset of "there could be consequences". It's the same tactic the RIAA uses.

    --

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  3. FBI by damicatz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. How about the DDoS against Wikileaks? by thue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am sure that the US is pursuing those who DDoSed WikiLeaks with equal energy.

    1. Re:How about the DDoS against Wikileaks? by jayme0227 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I remember correctly, wasn't the DDoS of WikiLeaks done with a traditional malware controlled botnet, while the Anonymous DDoS's were done with an opt-in botnet? To me, it seems like that would make it easier to track down the members of Anonymous who participated than it would be to track down those who were controlling the anti-Wikileaks botnet.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
  5. Website access is not unauthorized by Sparr0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem with calling a DDOS "unauthorized access" is that the access is implicitly authorized by the server being on the internet. The real world analogy here is getting your hundred closest friends to visit WalMart and go through the checkout lines VERY VERY SLOWLY. You have the intent to negatively impact their business, and you are acting recklessly, but that is only 2/3 (well, more like 9/10) of the criteria for violating the laws in question here. 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).

    1. 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.

  6. The lesson here? by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't be a useful idiot. Don't take your marching orders from people on the interet who don't give a fuck about you. A DDOS attack like the one 4-chan (let's call them what they are) did, could have actually been anonymous had the morons actually been hackers. This is what it looks like when one pseudo-hacker can write a DDOS program, and a bunch of tech-illiterate morons run it on their network without actually knowing what it's doing, or how to mask their identity.

  7. Re:When will they learn? by Terrasque · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, I can only speak for me and friends, but for us it's convenience.

    After Steam, we never bother pirating games any more. The act of searching, finding a good version, hassling with cracks and all that.. Not worth it. Buy on Steam. Get instant high-speed download, install on multiple computers, automatic updates, easy to reinstall if computer borks... Pirating games? Feh, too much work (while still being much less than buying in store and mucking about with CD's and such).

    Music? After Spotify, we never bother to download. Too much hassle. Spotify have almost all avaliable, streaming, easy sharing, sync to my android.. Downloading, waiting, finding the one single actually good rip? Feh, screw that.

    So, the only thing left is movies and tv shows. Here in Norway the only alternative we got is Voddler, which is lower quality and less convenient (forced commercials? feh) than downloading. And DVD? "You have to see all these trailers of years-old movies and silly anti pirate ads first! Muahahaha" - Seriously.. Even when I buy DVD's, the first thing I do is to rip them to remove the crap and the reliance on the physical disk. Get a good streaming service (with MINIMUM youtube 720p quality and either own bought movies (no silly renting please) or reasonable monthly fee), and I'll stop pirating that too.

    It's simple. Video content industry is getting their ass handed to them on both quality and convenience. Get something that is at least equal in those to what the pirates offer, and you'll see an uptake.

    --
    It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  8. Whew! by mr1911 · · Score: 4, Funny

    There for a minute I read the headline as "FBI Executes 40 Search Warrants For 'Anonymous Coward'", which is why I logged in to make this post.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.