UK Police Charge Suspected Anonymous Spokesman

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Police Charge Suspected Anonymous Spokesman

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday July 31, 2011 @02:55PM from the not-so-anonymous dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Scotland Yard has tonight charged 18-year-old Jake Davis, who was arrested in the Shetland Islands last week, with five offenses including unauthorized computer access and conspiracy to carry out a DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attack against the SOCA (Serious Organized Crime Agency) website. When announcing his arrest on Wednesday, police said that they believed Davis used the online nickname 'Topiary' and acted as the spokesperson for the Anonymous and LulzSec hacking groups. Topiary's final twitter message said 'You can't arrest an idea' just before his arrest."

153 of 247 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Remember, remember by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 14:59 · Score: 1

the first of August?
1. Re:Remember, remember by Nursie · 2011-07-31 15:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Funny that, but prison rape isn't so much of a problem in the UK as it is in the great old US of A, where it seems to actually be encouraged as part of the punishment.
2. Re:Remember, remember by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 16:05 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Funny that, but prison rape isn't so much of a problem in the UK
  Of course it isn't seeing as you're all a bunch of poofters.
  That old "Lie back and think of England" bit wasn't something that was told to young ladies on their wedding night.. it was told to their husbands.
3. Re:Remember, remember by smelch · 2011-07-31 16:28 · Score: 2
  
  Prison rape is played up in the states. Of all the people I've talked to in and out of prison, you almost never see that kind of thing unless its consensual. They always play it as rape though because getting caught having sex with another inmate will get you a pretty hefty punishment, and definitely doesn't sit well with a lot of the other inmates.
  
  --
  If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
4. Re:Remember, remember by rtfa-troll · 2011-07-31 17:01 · Score: 2
  
  Of all the people I've talked to in and out of prison
  I guess you are American, and that means you know quite a few former prisoners because of this, but as the meme goes, the plural of Anecdote is not "statistic". Prison rape tends to happen to more normal / weaker prisoners in violent prisons. It is more common in state prisons than federal. It's also very area specific. The target group is unlikely to be a main group of friends of the average Slashdot reader. It's completely likely that it's happening and that the people that you know don't know about it.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
5. Re:Remember, remember by evilviper · 2011-07-31 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  Prison rape is more a popular plot device, and cultural running-gag than an actual problem in the US. Aesop's fables are probably the closest analogy.
  Studies have shown the problem is, in fact, very limited: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-17-prison-rape_x.htm
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
6. Re:Remember, remember by TheRaven64 · 2011-07-31 21:51 · Score: 2
  
  You say:
  
  Studies have shown the problem is, in fact, very limited
  And then link to a page that says:
  
  The two-year study, commissioned by the U.S. Justice Department for $939,233, has come under withering attack from other experts. The department has not endorsed the study, saying Fleisher has yet to turn over his data for closer examination.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
7. Re:Remember, remember by Anonymus · 2011-07-31 22:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The two-year study, commissioned by the U.S. Justice Department for $939,233, has come under withering attack from other experts. The department has not endorsed the study, saying Fleisher has yet to turn over his data for closer examination.
  
  Cindy Struckman-Johnson, professor of psychology at the University of South Dakota and one of nine commission members, said Fleisher's 155-page study is not in scientific form. She said there is no literature review, no raw data, and no in-depth explanation of his subjects or research methods.
  So, when the Department of Justice gives you a million dollars, obviously you're supposed to lie and tell them what they want to hear, but this guy went so far overboard with it (essentially, nobody in prison is ever raped and anyone who claims they are is lying), even the sponsor will say "hold on a sec..."
8. Re:Remember, remember by horza · 2011-07-31 23:32 · Score: 2
  
  People in England don't quite have the same obsession with male anal sex as Americans seem to. I doubt anybody would get ass-raped in an English prison, and pretty much zero chance for somebody in a low security prison. Interesting Reddit article on coping in prison here.
  Phillip.
  
  --
  Property for sale in Nice, France
9. Re:Remember, remember by smelch · 2011-08-01 00:39 · Score: 2
  
  Well seeing as how I've been in prison myself and did quite a bit of research on it, and spent a lot of time on forums where former and soon-to-be inmates post on topics just like this, I'll take my research over your assertions. And I'm not saying there is never any prison rape, I'm just saying it is exaggerated. A very low percentage of people in prison are raped, the impression a lot of people have is that it is almost inevitable. That's just not true, and from what you're saying we agree on this, so I don't know why you felt the need to act like I was wrong for saying it is played up, then going on to say it happens to very specific groups in very specific places. So, uh, how is that not played up when everybody always immediately jumps to "Ohhhh! Butt rape!" when they hear "prison"?
  
  --
  If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
10. Re:Remember, remember by Hylandr · 2011-08-01 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  60. isn't a whole lot. When you can demonstrate that .001 of a person though, I will be truly awestruck
  - Dan.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
11. Re:Remember, remember by smelch · 2011-08-01 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Always prompt, always satisfying.
  
  --
  If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
12. Re:Remember, remember by robthebloke · 2011-08-01 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. England is a lot like Sparta (with a bit more rain)..... Now. Stand near my well and say that!
  Madness? This is England!
13. Re:Remember, remember by TehNoobTrumpet · 2011-08-01 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  In many countries . is used like , in the USA.
14. Re:Remember, remember by Hylandr · 2011-08-01 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  You know, that hadn't occurred to me. I stand corrected.
  - Dan.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
15. Re:Remember, remember by rtfa-troll · 2011-08-01 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well seeing as how I've been in prison myself and did quite a bit of research on it, and spent a lot of time on forums where former and soon-to-be inmates post on topics just like this, I'll take my research over your assertions.
  
  Absolutely fair enough, though you'll excuse me if, in the absence of a link to your research where we can analyse it and then learn from it, I don't take it as given.
  Having said that, I think there are several factors here. Firstly we tend to discuss computer crimes here which are often stupidly classified together with things like terrorism and so can easily end up with non violent people being sent to places they shouldn't be. Secondly, lots of the people making the statements you are describing to aren't making them because they believe in them. They are making them because they are nasty people, so I will admit that they are "playing it up" in order to scare other people and make sick jokes. However, the fact that a bunch of sick people do that doesn't mean that serious campaigners aren't. Finally, these crimes are pretty nasty. The people who experience them and are willing to talk about it obviously talk about them lots. I don't think that that is "playing it up".
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
16. Re:Remember, remember by Nursie · 2011-08-01 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, thanks for that link, it was an interesting read (even if I don't fully empathise with or agree with him in a bunch of places).
17. Re:Remember, remember by RockDoctor · 2011-08-01 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Well seeing as how I've been in prison myself and did quite a bit of research on it,
  [SNIP]
  So, uh, how is that not played up when everybody always immediately jumps to "Ohhhh! Butt rape!" when they hear "prison"?
  Just as a matter of interest, what (in your knowledge) is the proportion of anal rapes to oral rapes in prison? Or is oral rape not considered as "rape" but a "lewd and libidinous assault"?
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
18. Re:Remember, remember by evilviper · 2011-08-02 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  The study was so long ago that most references to it are gone. Anything that says "yet" should be ignored.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
JOIN THE CFAFI! STOP THIS MADNESS! by For+a+Free+Internet · 2011-07-31 15:00 · Score: 1, Funny

The Campaign for a Free Internet calls on all Free Americans to join us in stopping Italians from taking over our Nation's internet and turning it into an authoritarian, homosexual islamocommunist dictatorship! As TFA shows, the Italians and their allies are striking boldly at our most chyerished freedoms. There is no time to waste. Join the Campaign today, and get a free commemorative lunchbox!

--
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
Do they have any evidence by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 15:05 · Score: 1

...that he even participated in the attacks? Afaik, there is no law against releasing statements with permission from an organization.
1. Re:Do they have any evidence by hedwards · 2011-07-31 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  If they're going the conspiracy route then no, likely just having knowledge and tweeting the success would be sufficient to drag him in.
2. Re:Do they have any evidence by izomiac · 2011-07-31 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  It seems odd to me to arrest the spokesperson. They're fairly easily replaced, and uninvolved in the actual activities (assuming common sense). They also let the authorities know who did what, which is invaluable for intel as to exactly how many groups you're fighting. So, I assume this was a political arrest. Going after their one lead just so they have something to show for their efforts.
3. Re:Do they have any evidence by Nursie · 2011-07-31 15:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Maybe the logic is that he knows *something* about the group, whatever it is, and the best way to get it out of him is haul him far from home and trump up a bunch of charges. He's only 19 after all.
4. Re:Do they have any evidence by Artifakt · 2011-07-31 16:16 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So, we're talking Britain here. There's still splinter groups out there from the IRA who also have spokespersons. There's people who blow up subway cars who have spokespersons. The idea here is to use a route that still protects the real core of damage causers, meaning your spokesperson doesn't really know all that much. Maybe one or more of those meatspace groups won't bother to call in and take 'responsibility' for the next atrocity and the British government will be left wondering just which group did it. A government that goes after spokespersons better have reason to think they can provide important, even vital data, or there's a big downside. Going after one for possibly knowing 'something' is simultaneously saying the group you are after isn't a real threat and you're confident your actions won't provoke them more than the info the spokesperson gives you is worth. Do you see any reason why the British government can make such a claim to its citizens?
  
  --
  Who is John Cabal?
5. Re:Do they have any evidence by SomePgmr · 2011-07-31 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know a whole lot about it, but I know there's considerable speculation that they've got the wrong guy. I guess they've successfully framed individuals that they don't like, and ended up not being who the authorities thought they were.
6. Re:Do they have any evidence by Nursie · 2011-07-31 17:03 · Score: 2
  
  Well firstly - there's no danger of Lulzsec not calling it in, they love publicity.
  Secondly, no, I don't consider them a 'real' threat. They're not threatening lives.
7. Re:Do they have any evidence by rtfa-troll · 2011-07-31 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  Well; let's assume that "they" already have, from traffic analysis by GCHQ and their collaborators over at the NSA, a complete list of the guys "in Anonymous" (==real own IP & MAC address of anyone who has recently used LOIC + real own IP & MAC anyone who has ever /recently chatted on the IRC channel + real own IP & MAC of anyone who has posted on most of their discussion forums + reasonable ID of most people who have turned up for their demonstrations) together with information about exactly what involvement they have. They can't afford to arrest them all since that would give away the extent of their monitoring of the internet. Where would you start? What would be your order of arrests? I guess that the aim is to reduce the embarrassment. The only constraint is that you need a semi-plausible reason to investigate a given individual. Going for the spokesmen and the people who are releasing information seems to me like a logical start.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
8. Re:Do they have any evidence by c0lo · 2011-07-31 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  Secondly, no, I don't consider them a 'real' threat. They're not threatening lives.
  They are doing worse than that - they are threatening some life-styles: the ones of the politicians and corporate execs.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
9. Re:Do they have any evidence by DrXym · 2011-07-31 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  ...that he even participated in the attacks? Afaik, there is no law against releasing statements with permission from an organization.
  That depends on the nature of the statements. If they can be construed as encouraging / assisting (inciting) serious crime, then yes absolutely he can be prosecuted under the serious crimes act. As indeed he has. It will be up to a jury to decide if he's guilty of the offence of course and I suppose his best hope would be in the police have trouble identifying him rather than some other "topiary" as the source of particular statements. If he was stupid enough to draft things on his PC and leave traces behind then he is fucked.
10. Re:Do they have any evidence by Aceticon · 2011-07-31 20:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The modus operandi of government in the UK is "we must be seen to act, so do something, anything".
  This applies as much to the police as with politicians, since in the last 10 or 15 years the police has progressivelly been politicised (with any high-level manager that didn't dance to the tune being sidelined) and they're usually called upon to be the tool that does the some kind of action for the cameras.
  The outcome is that they cannot be trusted: have they got the right man? Have they got the wrong man? Who knows.
  They got somebody and the media reported they're doing something, so the real objective of the operation has already been achived. Probably in 2 or 3 months time when this guy finally faces a court (the only part of the system that actually cares about finding out the truth, rather than convicting somebody) it's quite possible that he's found innocent (or maybe all they manage to pin on him is something minor) and they will quietly release him, since by then the media would have moved on.
  As the recent News of The World debacle has shown, in the UK the press has a huge amount of influence and both the politicians and high-level management inside the police have been trained to quickly find somebody to sacrifice whenever the press demands blood.
11. Re:Do they have any evidence by ledow · 2011-07-31 22:48 · Score: 2
  
  "only 19"
  Which means he's old enough to have sex (by three years in the UK), have children, marry, have a house, a mortgage, a credit card, a car, drink alcohol (18 in the UK), enter pubs, represent himself in court, sign legally-binding contracts (18), get loans, gamble, smoke and (most importantly) understand the standard police caution which states he's doesn't have to say anything and is entitled to access to a lawyer (even a free one appointed by the government if necessary).
  This *MAN* isn't a kid. He's legally responsible and has been for quite a while. And I doubt the police would go to such public and extraordinary lengths if they couldn't pin a convictable offence on him already - especially when it involves the co-operation of many different police sections across country borders and legal systems (England/Scotland have different legal systems - the Shetlands are in Scotland).
  My guess would be that he was caught either encouraging others to DDoS or as a major part of the DDoS itself and now they have charges they can squeeze him for names /identities of others involved (I would guess they have reasonable expectation that he knows or organised others, thus he was more of a "ringleader" than his mother would like to make out). Also, they probably want to seize his computer because he's more likely to have information about his own sources and contacts which could lead to others in the group (a private message / email from someone else discussing the attacks could be evidence enough to convict them upon, for instance).
12. Re:Do they have any evidence by S.O.B. · 2011-07-31 23:33 · Score: 2
  
  FREE TOPIARY???
  Sounds like they just don't want to pay for their sculpted shrubbery. The plants just want to be free.
  
  --
  Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
13. Re:Do they have any evidence by Nursie · 2011-08-01 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  At 18 or 19, I would have found the situation quite intimidating, meaning I'm guessing that he will probably fold under a bit of pressure and give the cops what they want.
  That's all I meant. Not "He's only 19 so he must be innocent", not "He's only 19 so he's not responsible for his actions", not whatever other image you've built of my argument, just that at his age he is probably susceptible to pressure and the police probably know it.
Darn kids these days by future+assassin · 2011-07-31 15:05 · Score: 2

Back in the day we had fun stealing cars for joy rides and doing jewlery store heists. These days kids have fun attacking computers, much more victim less crime.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
1. Re:Darn kids these days by DreamMaster · 2011-07-31 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  It really depends on the data. Remember that a large part of the protests against the Wikileaks release of Afghanistan info was the potential to endanger the lives of civilian informants. Such computer crimes as we see these days can have the potential to hurt a lot of people. Not that a terrorist couldn't also hurt a lot of people using a stolen car. It just depends on what's actually done.
2. Re:Darn kids these days by Gadget_Guy · 2011-07-31 15:25 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Back in the day we had fun stealing cars for joy rides and doing jewlery store heists. These These days kids have fun attacking computers, much more victim less crime.
  I think that Sony would disagree with you there. I doubt that the total value of your stolen cars and jewellery would add up to anywhere near what Sony has lost due to its recent hacks.
3. Re:Darn kids these days by poena.dare · 2011-07-31 15:58 · Score: 2
  
  I think that Sony would disagree with you there. I doubt that the total value of your stolen cars and jewellery would add up to anywhere near what Sony has lost due to its recent hacks.
  I'll bet every person who was infected by a Sony rootkit or anyone who wants to mod or run a second OS on their Playstation will say it was just deserts.
4. Re:Darn kids these days by Tasha26 · 2011-07-31 16:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I guess there isn't really much to do in the Shetland Islands!
5. Re:Darn kids these days by AHuxley · 2011-07-31 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  "civilian informants"? I think they would be able to map out most local people having contact for cash ect....
  If the night raids get too good in your area, you have an informant..
  No need for complex computer files in areas where people are close .. the namers listed in any "free", "gift to the world" "download" databases might be traps ..
  COINTELPRO was great at getting groups to replace their own top leaders with well placed gossip.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
6. Re:Darn kids these days by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, deserts as in punishments.
7. Re:Darn kids these days by DrXym · 2011-07-31 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'll bet every person who was infected by a Sony rootkit or anyone who wants to mod or run a second OS on their Playstation will say it was just deserts.
  So you mean all 3 of them?
8. Re:Darn kids these days by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  Did YOU actually read it? The article explains why the phrase is "just deserts", not "just desserts".
9. Re:Darn kids these days by DrXym · 2011-07-31 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be ridiculous
10. Re:Darn kids these days by KiloByte · 2011-07-31 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wikileaks data was thoroughly vetted. And revealing the misdeeds and, even worse, incompetence, of both the government and the chain of command has a serious potential of saving lives, both of Afgani civilians (whom I don't really care about) and our soldiers.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
11. Re:Darn kids these days by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 20:38 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is Sony et al claim they have security. That charade has been publicly exposed. Sony didn't lose money due to the hacks, Sony lost money because they didn't do due diligence on security.
  We don't even have go to car analogy here - it's already been reduced to children's fable. These kids are showing the Emperor is Naked.
  I can't manage to badmouth them for this. Having academics deliver papers hasn't done shit for waking people up, as customers or as corporations. These kids are just showing what's already wide-open and well-used by real criminals. Apparently this is what it costs to get notice. It's even looking like this might not be enough to really get things fixed.
12. Re:Darn kids these days by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Since you're not reading Snopes, maybe this will convince you a bit more easily. Unless you don't think the OED research their words thoroughly. (If you do, you're wrong.)
  http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/50773?rskey=rXfMTJ&result=1#eid
13. Re:Darn kids these days by Anonymus · 2011-07-31 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Next time read the link all the way to the end instead of just the first two paragraphs.
14. Re:Darn kids these days by S.O.B. · 2011-07-31 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  If all they did was break in and publish how they were able to do it then I would agree with you but they didn't stop there. They published the personal details of millions of customers including passwords and credit card info.
  To use your analogy, to show that the "Emperor is Naked" you don't have to piss on the peasants.
  
  --
  Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
15. Re:Darn kids these days by oreaq · 2011-08-01 00:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "It was estimated by internet security expert Dan Kaminsky that XCP was in use on more than 500,000 networks". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal
16. Re:Darn kids these days by shmeeps · 2011-08-01 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  I think that Sony would disagree with you there. I doubt that the total value of your stolen cars and jewellery would add up to anywhere near what Sony has lost due to its recent hacks.
  Perhaps, if Sony had actually done it's job and had some decent security, they wouldn't have lost anything.
  
  That's like a dealership leaving all the keys in their cars with the front gate unlocked. You just EXPECT it all to get stolen.
17. Re:Darn kids these days by cavreader · 2011-08-01 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  So they had it coming? Forget about your animosity towards Sony in particular for a second and your arguments come pretty close to blaming the crime victim instead of the crime perpetrator. How you go walking through a neighborhood and checking to see if everyone has their doors locked and when you find one not locked they obviously expect things to be stolen so why not go in and help yourself?
18. Re:Darn kids these days by TheCarp · 2011-08-01 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds pretty much the way it is here in the states. You bitch about the police and people will tell you all day how "its a hard job", or "they keep us safe", or "Well if your wife was murdered... blah blah". Never mind that they spend most of their resources trapping people for minor speeding violations and other BS. Never mind that half the prison system is nonviolent drug offenders... and thats not even counting the constant churn of people who never make prison and just end up railroaded through probation.
  The timing on this sounds about right, I bet they are all too happy to have something that will "look positive" about now, while their feet are in the fire.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
19. Re:Darn kids these days by cavreader · 2011-08-01 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  What the heck are you talking about? Just leaving valuables in plain sight is enough justification for stealing them? It seems like an awful lot of people are ready to turn a blind eye to any crime that happens to be committed using a computer and using excuses like "well after all it was insecure" or using some vague social protest rational to justify their actions. What is the difference between me running through my neighborhood and stealing my neighbors mail out of their mailboxes and hacking someones online e-mail account? The first action violates one of the oldest Federal Laws in existence while the second is blown off as inconsequential or just annoying. If there are 2 organizations you don't want to piss off in the US it is the IRS and the USPS. These guys make the CIA, NSA, and FBI look like fluffy bunnies when it comes to going after people they think are breaking their rules. I would prefer a holiday vacation in Guantanamo over an IRS audit.
20. Re:Darn kids these days by Ant+P. · 2011-08-01 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  your arguments come pretty close to blaming the crime victim instead of the crime perpetrator
  Sony is both of these.
21. Re:Darn kids these days by cavreader · 2011-08-01 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  That might well be true but to tell you the truth I have never really cared one way or another in the specific Sony case. However I do have a problem with some of the justification arguments people have been supporting.
Re:Yeah? by rhook · 2011-07-31 15:06 · Score: 1

Fuck Anonymous, they all belong in jail. A bunch of self-glorifying script kiddies, that's all.
Says the Anonymous Coward.
You can arrest the person by DreamMaster · 2011-07-31 15:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

You may not be able to arrest an idea, but it seems you can arrest the person.
1. Re:You can arrest the person by mat+catastrophe · 2011-07-31 16:01 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/internet-abuzz-with-claims-that-uk-police-picked-up-the-wrong-topiary.ars
  It's possible that they are tossing the police ringers.
  
  --
  sig not found
2. Re:You can arrest the person by AmiMoJo · 2011-07-31 20:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It wouldn't be the first time. The UK police have no problem arresting people based on the flimsiest of evidence and then hoping they will crack during questioning. Unfortunately what tends to happen is that the person doesn't admit to something they didn't do and they end up dragging it out for as long as possible and then trying to bullshit their way to a conviction in court. If the defence lawyer is any good they get some experts in to refute the evidence, but unfortunately there is a tendency not to do that if the prosecution has already decided to use an expert witness because it is assumed that said witness will be impartial and objective.
  Operation Ore is the most notorious example of police relying on clearly flawed evidence, but there are many others. In Operation Ore they received a large number of credit card numbers that had been used to pay for child pornography from US police and simply arrested all the card holders. They didn't bother to check if the card details had been stolen, they just rushed in and destroyed dozens of lives for a few easy headlines.
  The only Omagh bombing suspect's trial collapsed because all they had was weak DNA evidence which matched him and a schoolboy in England. Barry George did several years in prison based on a single spec of gunpowder found on his clothes, which were stored in a room containing other garments with gunpowder on them.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:You can arrest the person by xatm092 · 2011-08-01 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  "Behind this mask is more than a man, My. Creedy. Behind this mask is an idea. And ideas are bulletproof." ~V for Vendetta, about 5 minutes before he dies.
Today's lesson by JoshuaZ · 2011-07-31 15:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Today's lesson: You aren't V. Neither the British or US government is an evil fascist state which brutally subjugates the populace. This isn't to say that they are perfect. Far from it. But the basic point is clear. Moreover, if either of the governments were so bad as to deserve fighting back then the method to respond would not involve hacking every single website you can most of whom are corporations which have nothing to do with anything. Sure it is probably fun to convince yourself that you are doing good, but your just a bunch of script kiddies who aren't being helpful while real activists spend their time and sometimes lives improving the governments and saving lives.
1. Re:Today's lesson by gale+the+simple · 2011-07-31 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, it is: "if irony were made of strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now."
  
  --
  This post is provided without warranty as to reliability, accuracy or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose.
2. Re:Today's lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 15:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That does not matter.
  Do you think the riots which resulted in many death in other countries were the "right way" to do it? Probably not.
  The point is that no other way works. You can't spend 30 years of your life trying to get a big political party and get shot down by your own guys after those 30 years. What you can do is protest. And if you protest, it's not going to be an email or a blog post, even not a public performance.
  You protest with things that everyone is going to _care_ about.
  Riots. Hacking high level web sites. Whatever else. At least, they don't kill people or destroy their lives - the government does that, daily, if you haven't noticed. That the proven way to change things, so far.
  What I find the most sad, is such arguments as "real activists" "saving lives". It sounds like "and also they capture pedophiles" and such crap. They don't save lives. They also don't do shit. If you haven't noticed that either, the governments, corporations haven't changed, and never do, until a revolution rise. How long do your real activists need, 100, 200, 500 years? Please, get a fucking clue.
  Revolutions started by riots, and other such acts,once again. Hacking is part of that, now.
3. Re:Today's lesson by Khyber · 2011-07-31 15:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "Neither the British or US government is an evil fascist state which brutally subjugates the populace"
  You haven't been watching their actions lately, have you? Teahadists and Republicrats alike essentially holding our asses hostage over non-existent fucking money, acting like the world fucking police, and trying to undermine the foundation of their governments for the profit of their friends.
  Take your blinders off.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
4. Re:Today's lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 15:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Going to get troll modded for this but whatever.
  You agree that the governments are not brutally subjugating the populace. You agree they are far from perfect also.
  Then you claim that if they were brutally subjugating the populace hacking, defacing, and dossing websites would not be the correct response.
  I'm sorry but I think you just proved anons point and their methods (while claiming contrary). Anon is using defacing and dos attacks as a form of peaceful protest. I wouldn't condone them going much further at the current time but denial of service and high profile defacing in form of protest seems like the perfect response to freedoms, rights, and liberties being slowly eroded.
  If you ask me, sure they are a bunch of script kiddies, but I am certain what they are doing is required with the current state of things. I also applaud taking action, now, and peacefully, before shit really hits the fan and people in the US / Britain are required to pick up arms to fight for real. (I think we all agree getting to that point would suck)
5. Re:Today's lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  Today's lesson: You aren't V. Neither the British or US government is an evil fascist state which brutally subjugates the populace. This isn't to say that they are perfect. Far from it. But the basic point is clear. Moreover, if either of the governments were so bad as to deserve fighting back then the method to respond would not involve hacking every single website you can most of whom are corporations which have nothing to do with anything. Sure it is probably fun to convince yourself that you are doing good, but your just a bunch of script kiddies who aren't being helpful while real activists spend their time and sometimes lives improving the governments and saving lives.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
  "Árbenz instigated sweeping land reform acts that antagonized the U.S.-based multinational United Fruit Company, which had large stakes in the old order of Guatemala and lobbied various levels of the U.S. government to take action against Árbenz.[2] Both Dulles and his brother were shareholders of United Fruit Company.[3]" -Wikipedia
  I think this idea that somehow the most powerful entities in the United States have nothing to do with how the country is run is wilful ignorance.
6. Re:Today's lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  Neither the British or US government is an evil fascist state which brutally subjugates the populace.
  Ironically, the parent poster was disappeared in the night by secret police for failing to use the word nor after neither. They're not fascists, but they are Grammar Nazis.
7. Re:Today's lesson by phantomfive · 2011-07-31 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes I appreciate when people point out my spelling/grammar mistakes, if they aren't rude about it, because that is how I improve.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
8. Re:Today's lesson by DurendalMac · 2011-07-31 16:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Oh bullshit. This kind of skiddie hacktivism is what spineless yobs do when they're too scared to go out and try to make a difference in the real world. It's just another breed of armchair combat, and a pretty sorry one as well. If you want to make a difference then do something out in the real world. Most people can actually relate to that. Do it through a computer and far less people will give a shit. Those who think they do are deluding themselves into believing that they're actually doing something great from the basement. It's lazy self-justification. Get your ass out into your community and do something in the real world. Few people give a shit about your online community.
9. Re:Today's lesson by phantomfive · 2011-07-31 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  Teahadists and Republicrats alike essentially....., acting like the world fucking police
  No, you're getting it backwards.....Democrats act like world police, with Clinton in Srebrenica and Obama in Libya. Republicans tend to go on evil-clensing quests: like Bush in Iraq and Reagan against communism.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
10. Re:Today's lesson by Anarchduke · 2011-07-31 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  quit hitlering people's grammar
  
  --
  who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
11. Re:Today's lesson by repapetilto · 2011-07-31 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Like what?
12. Re:Today's lesson by Simply+Curious · 2011-07-31 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious. It seems like a voluntary DDoS is nothing more than the digital equivalent of a sit-in protest. In each, there is a point to be made beyond simple, malicious destruction. In each, the underlying infrastructure is left undamaged. In each, the method of protest is to do as normal customers do, but more so, whether by sitting in the dining area for extended periods of time, or by requesting the site continuously for extended periods of time. Do you have any opinion as to whether this analogy is valid?
13. Re:Today's lesson by AlphaWolf_HK · 2011-07-31 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  A DDos attack is hardly attacking a web site, in reality it is no different to temporarily obstructing a corporations main entry point ie. a misdemeanour in line with disturbing the peace. Those add on charges are just abuses of the law by the law. Seriously how fucked up and ludicrous is the idea of conspiracy to commit a misdemeanour as being a serious crime
  That isn't a fair comparison. A company who does business solely through its website can't do business if the website is shut down. That would be akin to people protesting wal-mart by walking into the store, forcibly removing every customer from the store, and then forbidding entry. Except even that still isn't a fair comparison either, because wal-marts might have a hundred customers in the store at once, whereas big websites like these on the other hand have a hundred thousand customers at once.
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
14. Re:Today's lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  > Few people give a shit about your online community.
  The police seemed to care.
15. Re:Today's lesson by Nursie · 2011-07-31 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  +1, how charmingly naive!
16. Re:Today's lesson by AlphaWolf_HK · 2011-07-31 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry but I think you just proved anons point and their methods (while claiming contrary). Anon is using defacing and dos attacks as a form of peaceful protest. I wouldn't condone them going much further at the current time but denial of service and high profile defacing in form of protest seems like the perfect response to freedoms, rights, and liberties being slowly eroded.
  That's more along the lines of censorship, because you're impairing their ability to communicate; you're doing the online equivalent of shutting them up.
  Protesting in this case would be putting up your own website, explaining your side of the story, and letting everybody else decide for themselves. The common saying doesn't come to mind, but I can paraphrase: If you let everybody speak, and let everybody listen, the truth will be known. You don't get to the truth by shutting the other guy up, that isn't how democracy works.
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
17. Re:Today's lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  Republicans tend to go on evil-clensing quests: like Bush in Iraq ..
  Sorry but isn't that THE best example of socialising the cost of war and privatising its profits? We paid the makers of Expensive War Toys.INC for the means of destr.. um, victory, and handed the same bunch of people lurcative rebuilding contract afterward. And gave them tax breaks.
18. Re:Today's lesson by der_joachim · 2011-07-31 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  If they had been on a quest against evil, they would have resigned.
  
  --
  Geek runner, motorcyclist and professional know-it-all
19. Re:Today's lesson by The+Master+Control+P · 2011-07-31 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  If you let everybody speak, and let everybody listen, the truth will be known.
  To the tiny minority both smart enough to see through the bullshit and astroturfed lies and willing to spend the effort to do so. Remember the healthcare "debate" in the US?
  
  As another saying goes, the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. Also, "You'll have the vote of every thinking man, Adlai." Adlai Stevenson: "Thank you, but I need a majority."
20. Re:Today's lesson by Dan541 · 2011-07-31 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  Also with a sit in protesters people are accountable.
  Not a bunch of cowards hiding behind their keyboards while they attack another entity.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
21. Re:Today's lesson by Bert64 · 2011-07-31 19:50 · Score: 2
  
  If you let everybody speak, and let everybody listen, the truth will be known.
  However, the mass media is controlled by a very small group... While everyone may be able to speak, only the mass media will be listened to by any significant proportion of people and thus their agendas are furthered and everything else ignored.
  If someone were to put up their own website explaining their side, how would anyone even learn of the existence of that site?
  There is no way to be heard without money and power, and the only way to get money and power is to be a part of the current system and thus have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
  The vast majority believe what they hear on the media, and never bother to question it... If they heard an alternative viewpoint they might believe that too, but why would those who control the media ever publish a viewpoint that weakened themselves?
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
22. Re:Today's lesson by Dan541 · 2011-07-31 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  A DDoS attack is also a violation of a persons right to free speech.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
23. Re:Today's lesson by TheGratefulNet · 2011-07-31 19:57 · Score: 2
  
  I could not help but think of this woody guthrie quote:
  
  I never stopped to think of it before, but you know, a policeman will just stand there and let a banker rob a farmer; or a finance man rob a working man. But if a farmer robs a banker, you would have a whole dern army of cops out a shooting at him. Robbery is a chapter in etiquette.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
24. Re:Today's lesson by risom · 2011-07-31 20:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Anarchy has never benefited a single country on the face of the planet.
  I am not a fan of Anarchism as a political system, but that sentence is empirically wrong. In early 20th century europe there were at least two cases I know of, Ukraine and Spain, where Anarchism lasted for a while, and was pretty successful in economical terms. For Spain for example it's more or less proven that the anarchist period saw a sharp rise in worker productivity.
  Both didn't last long in the grand scale of things, but their military defeat does not relate to them being anarchist regions - they were just small and didn't have a chance against their much more powerful enemy (Spain: The spanish fascist movement with support from other fascist movements from all over Europe; Ukraine: the Red Army).
25. Re:Today's lesson by DrXym · 2011-07-31 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  Peaceful protest my ass. They're children taking down sites and then engaging in some post hoc ergo propter hoc justification for doing it. There is no point believing there is anything more to it than that because their isn't.
26. Re:Today's lesson by AmiMoJo · 2011-07-31 20:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What alternative would you suggest? I have tried writing to my MP several times and either get fobbed off or nothing changes. Peaceful protest is pointless - 2 million marched against invading Iraq but where completely ignored. The only political party offering any real reform sold out the second they got into power. Corporations are even worse.
  On the other hand violence does work. The Poll Tax protests were ignored until people starting throwing things and smashing stuff up. It had to be sustained for weeks though, not just a one-off.
  The only non-violent thing that works is leaking evidence, such as in the MP's expenses scandal. Since most people are not in a position to leak information then hacking to get it is somewhat legitimised. Aside from anything else it lets us know which companies have a clue about security and can be trusted, and in several cases it has exposed law-breaking (ACS:Law, HB Gary, MediaDefender etc). I can appreciate the irony of hacking to expose law-breaking but if leaking data with no criminal intent is justified by the content of said data then acquiring it by hacking is not far off.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
27. Re:Today's lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  They already do exactly that. Hacking is just another facet of Anonymous.
  But I guess you don't read about that on Slashdot since it's only tech-related news that only picks up the hacks and ddos they accomplish.
  Go on youtube and search "Anonymous". You'll see that they're more than willing to invade meatspace.
28. Re:Today's lesson by Phrogman · 2011-07-31 21:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The major purpose of Bush in Iraq was to advance US corporate interests and secure control over oil etc. The secondary purpose was to test new weapon systems and ensure vast sums of money were either "lost" or awarded to US military contractors and other companies. Most of the huge sums of money spent on the war went directly into corporate pockets.
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
29. Re:Today's lesson by sgbett · 2011-07-31 23:10 · Score: 2
  
  Ah, the the government approved form of demonstration! That'll learn 'em.
  
  --
  Invaders must die
30. Re:Today's lesson by misexistentialist · 2011-07-31 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  The international police response seems to indicate that this type of internet action is pretty powerful. You are basically arguing that guerrillas are cowardly for not lining up in plain view to be mowed down by the establishment's enormous stockpiled wealth and materiel. Even the President of United States is never more powerful than when he is in his basement bunker.
31. Re:Today's lesson by daid303 · 2011-07-31 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  But they have already brought change. They have shown digital data is not always safe, and that there is always an exposure risk. This has shown it's effects already in The Netherlands, where the public transport records are being kept for shorter periods now, and these records contain a lot of personal information, due to a new public transport system where you have a card which has your personal details linked to it.
  I rather see that these records are not kept at all, and luckily they also have anonymous cards (which I have).
32. Re:Today's lesson by Troed · 2011-08-01 00:16 · Score: 2
  
  real, lasting change. None of which involves "riots"
  On the contrary, that's the basis for most real lasting changes. Look it up. Women's rights movements, blacks, end of slavery, overthrowing kings etc.
  
  --
  it's in my head
33. Re:Today's lesson by rtb61 · 2011-08-01 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  I fail to see why you can not understand that a protest is meant to be disruptive and the substantive difference between shutting something down permanently versus a short term non-damaging temporary disruption, not too mention the idea of which takes precedence corporate profits or people's rights. Just to be certain, a corporation is not a person, it is a business illusion behind which to hide amoral douche bag behaviour and to be able to put the penalties for lying, cheating, stealing and even killing on the share holders rather than the people who actually make those decisions.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
34. Re:Today's lesson by Instine · 2011-08-01 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  "Neither the British or US government is an evil fascist state which brutally subjugates the populace."
  
  Guess you've never been kettled and charged by horses for taking part in a (up until that point) peaceful protest against the ideology of the ruling government? I have. It's life threatening, and has proven fatal on more than one occasion. And undoubtedly terrifying. This is state oppression of the population by any definition I understand.
  
  Or been detained indefinitely without charge and sleep deprived, partially drowned etc... No I haven't but its not hard to imagine how that could also be seen as oppressive and terrorising and is now admitted by the US and complicity admitted by the UK.
  
  --
  Because you can - or because you should?
35. Re:Today's lesson by phantomfive · 2011-08-01 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  The major purpose of Bush in Iraq was to advance US corporate interests and secure control over oil etc.
  
  Corporate interests? Because the average, non-incorporated citizen doesn't have an interest in low gas prices?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
36. Re:Today's lesson by phantomfive · 2011-08-01 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Neither Hitler nor Stalin considered themselves evil, and yet they were.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
37. Re:Today's lesson by cpt+kangarooski · 2011-08-01 04:00 · Score: 2
  
  Are you saying that gas prices have gone down since we've been in Iraq? But the petroleum industry has been making record profits.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
38. Re:Today's lesson by Khyber · 2011-08-01 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  "Corporate interests? Because the average, non-incorporated citizen doesn't have an interest in low gas prices?"
  Price of gas Before 9/11 - in TN, under $1.50/gal
  Now, friends tell me (I moved to Cali) Gas is about $3.50/gal
  Inflation ain't going up THAT fast.
  Where's that low gas price, again? I don't see it.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
39. Re:Today's lesson by Khyber · 2011-08-01 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  By securing *OUR* democracy there, we have essentially secured their oil supply for ourselves.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
40. Re:Today's lesson by phantomfive · 2011-08-01 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  I feel like you have a point, but your point is either not clear, or is not related to my earlier post, which you replied to.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
41. Re:Today's lesson by cpt+kangarooski · 2011-08-01 05:05 · Score: 2
  
  In response to an earlier post claiming that the purpose of our war in Iraq was to advance the interests of certain US businesses and secure oil, you replied saying that even individuals in the US would like to see gas prices be lower.
  I was pointing out that if one of the reasons to invade Iraq was to lower the price of gas, it has backfired spectacularly. But this hasn't particularly harmed the US businesses that the earlier poster thought were the intended beneficiaries of the war. This suggests that either lower gas prices was never an objective or that it came a distant second in terms of priorities for the Bush administration, which, typically, fucked it up.
  In any event, I'd just as soon see our energy use reduced through greater efficiency and reduced demand, and more of our energy provided by safe, clean, domestic sources. Sadly, there seems to be little collective will in getting this done, or at least little evidence of it. If it takes continued increases in the price of gas to get us going in that direction, then I'm all for it, though I would certainly prefer to use whatever cheap energy we have left in a wise manner so as to get ready for the future, rather than to waste it on frivolous driving. But as long as we make the transition, I suppose it'll work out.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
42. Re:Today's lesson by phantomfive · 2011-08-01 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, right. There is a difference between 'securing oil' and lowering gas prices. There were clearly those in the Bush administration who were euphoric about the idea of creating a military base in Iraq from which we could control the entire region. Guess that didn't work out.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:God by webmistressrachel · 2011-07-31 15:42 · Score: 1

What does this mean? Please, someone send me a cipher!!!

--
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
Re:Because thats how to handle things. by bakarocket · 2011-07-31 15:55 · Score: 5, Funny

You really have to work on shortening your revolutionary slogan. Try something catchy like "Corruption Shmorruption!!" or "Stupid Government, We Hate You!"
Evidence suggests wrong person by rickzor · 2011-07-31 16:05 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22280
Evidence such as previously leaked information, IRC logs, and the age, identity and location of the suspect arrested suggest that they caught the wrong person.
1. Re:Evidence suggests wrong person by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-07-31 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  You know, I have found it rather convenient that every single "Anonymous" person they have "caught" has been JUST over the legal age (18-22).
2. Re:Evidence suggests wrong person by Timmmm · 2011-08-01 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Did you actually read that IRC log? Worse. Double-bluff. Evar. Choice quotes:
  
  [removed]: S'up Daniel
  Topiary: s'appening [removed]
  
  Topiary: anyway I trust you so yeah
  Topiary: we can keep this between us
  [removed]: Wont say a word bro
  Right.
3. Re:Evidence suggests wrong person by gknoy · 2011-08-01 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  It may be that they don't bother with people that are underage, or wait until they are no longer underage before trying to pin them with charges?
4. Re:Evidence suggests wrong person by synapse7 · 2011-08-01 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they didn't, maybe they did. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/lulzsec-spokesman-in-court-after-police-find-750k-passwords-on-his-pc.ars Who knows...
get a rope by gearloos · 2011-07-31 16:11 · Score: 1

nuff said

--
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Re:Remember remember by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 16:11 · Score: 1

Which crime, posting something on teh Internets?
Yeah, serious business.
Too young to hide? by hcs_$reboot · 2011-07-31 16:13 · Score: 1

It seems those people are arrested thanks to the IP address they were using at the time.
Are they too young to know Tor and the like?

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
1. Re:Too young to hide? by Dan667 · 2011-07-31 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  I remember reading tor is not perfect and you can poison / man in the middle it pretty easily.
2. Re:Too young to hide? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 16:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Tor will successfully hide your IP from every node except your entry point. However, by inspecting the actual data, you can sometimes learn something about the origin of the packet. Just because an envelope has no return address, that doesn't mean you can't figure out who sent it by reading the actual letter.
Re:Because thats how to handle things. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 16:20 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
What idea? by phantomfive · 2011-07-31 16:22 · Score: 1

You can't arrest an idea'
What idea are they pushing? I thought they just liked hacking sites that have weak security.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:What idea? by muffen · 2011-07-31 20:59 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Thats the idea!
Re: by taiwanjohn · 2011-07-31 16:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Played up or not, it is a problem.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Re:Because thats how to handle things. by phantomfive · 2011-07-31 16:42 · Score: 4, Informative

This post is exactly an example of someone who has become a parrot for the latest political memes, without doing research to find out how the world actually is.

Note the example he picks of an 'evil' oil company: BP. Of course everyone knows why, and before that the political meme was Exxon. But why do you ignore the full-on corruption, crime, and murder, of oil companies that are truly evil, like Gazprom? It's because you only have a shallow understanding of the subject.

Likewise, it is easy to get mad at Murdoch (since no one likes him anyway), but are you aware that many UK newspapers were doing the same kind of thing? The story there isn't about Murdoch, it's about a corrupt political/police system in the UK.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The real Anonymous doesn't work like that... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 16:55 · Score: 1

Do they really think that they caught the right guy?
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/28/7187828-lulzsec-rumors-was-the-real-topiary-arrested
Granted it doesn't matter if they did. There are no leaders of anonymous, and any spokesmen really only speak for themselves. Hell, i could hop on irc and 4chan and declare myself leader of anonymous and start issuing commands.
My guess is 10% would do what I say because it seems like the fun thing to do at the moment.
20% would take my command and expand on it well beyond what I intended.
20% would insist on a different target and maybe a different method of attack.
10% would actively work to sabotage the efforts of everyone already listed.
10% would also declare themselves the leaders and issue their own commands.
And the rest would just trade underage furry porn.
The thing that most people fail to understand is that these groupings will change at the drop of a hat. there's no consistency and no order ant they like it that way. (well, a percentage of them do)
Re:Yeah? by ozmanjusri · 2011-07-31 17:12 · Score: 1

A bunch of self-glorifying script kiddies, that's all.
Just like old times hey?
I wonder if he'll turn out the same way as Mendax did.

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Re:Because thats how to handle things. by ShakaUVM · 2011-07-31 17:29 · Score: 1

>>Likewise, it is easy to get mad at Murdoch (since no one likes him anyway), but are you aware that many UK newspapers were doing the same kind of thing?
Hell, the NYT *defended* their use of hacked phone data to get stories.
Murdoch is getting run through the grinder mainly because he's Murdoch.
>>This post is exactly an example of someone who has become a parrot for the latest political memes
Does it surprise you that it was an 18-year old? =)
Re:Because thats how to handle things. by nedlohs · 2011-07-31 17:36 · Score: 1

Gazprom is Russian and he likely cares about things involving his country not somewhere half way across the world.
Murdoch owns lots of media in the US, and hence his companies doing bad things in the UK is of far more relevance on slashdot (a US site) than corruption in the political/police system in another country.
Re:Because thats how to handle things. by phantomfive · 2011-07-31 17:41 · Score: 1

Sure, maybe that's true, or maybe he parrots the latest political memes lol

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
POWER VACUUM! by idbeholda · 2011-07-31 17:46 · Score: 2

Just like the last several times, another will take his place. I neither condone or condemn the actions of these groups, but I would like to point out the facts as they've unfolded.
Modern day "Zorro" by mcrbids · 2011-07-31 18:21 · Score: 2

Remember that movie a few years back, "Zoro" with Antonio Banderas? (If not, it's probably up on Netflix Instant Play or a torrent someplace)
The movie was all about the "passing of the guard" - a new, younger man taking the role of "Zoro", the anonymous masked crime fighter of the previous generation. It's a good movie, so I recommend it highly. But it also does a passable job of showing the difference between an identity and an idea.
I'm guessing that there are, in fact, a half dozen or more actual people who have had the identity of "Topiary". They may have shared the pseudo-identity concurrently, so, who did what?
I'm getting out the popcorn and getting ready to watch the show!

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
1. Re:Modern day "Zorro" by Larryish · 2011-08-01 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  It would be funny if all the proponents of Anonymous and Lulzsec started using the name "Topiary" when signing up for forums, etc.
  Will the real Slim Shady please stand up?
Re:Because thats how to handle things. by rtfa-troll · 2011-07-31 18:22 · Score: 1

As a first stage; breaking it into paragraphs and grouping the statements into related logical units within those paragraphs would probably help too. I tried to read it and started getting a headache. Chardansearavitriol; I think you are missing the paragraph marker. Remember slashdot comments are HTML. You need a
at the start of each paragraph.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Yeah? by rainmouse · 2011-07-31 18:30 · Score: 1

Hopefully the guy he's bunking with will have just as big a hardon for V for Vendetta, maybe he'll go gentle on him the first time.
It must be pointed out yet again that only in the USA, do people suddenly turn gay as soon as the bars slam shut (if American pop culture can be believed which in itself is an obviously ridiculous notion).
The guy is from the Shetland Isles. Anyone has been to Shetland or even just seen it on a map must be wondering how he can commit cyber-crimes with an internet connection slower than a second class postal stamp in a village that likely only recently gained electricity and running water.
Re:Because thats how to handle things. by ShakaUVM · 2011-07-31 19:08 · Score: 1

>>Yes, it does- by the age of 18 most people understand what a paragraph is.
Not if they use Twitter. Then you only can construct your thoughts in pithy, quasi-related sentence-paragraphs.
Re: 'You can't arrest an idea' by ibsteve2u · 2011-07-31 19:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, but you can declare that corporations are people and their wealth is free speech and drown that idea in an ocean of propaganda...

--
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Right, by SmallFurryCreature · 2011-07-31 19:16 · Score: 1

So you can only protest against a government once it has opened the gas-chambers? Some might say it is a bit to late. In fact some people claim that the right to protest and even cause inconvience by doing so is the sign of a healthy democracy. A sign of a failing democracy is usually people going "oh it ain't quite a nightmarish hellhole yet, so lets all just lay on our backs until it is".
Freedom, your attitude towards it sucks.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Why are most of these evil hackers teenagers? by Froeschle · 2011-07-31 19:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

Lately it seems that most of the hackers getting caught are not even 20 years old, many of them still juveniles. Is this because it's juvenile behaviour and there are less adults out there doing the same type of thing or are the older (more experienced?) hackers just a lot more careful to not get caught?
1. Re:Why are most of these evil hackers teenagers? by subreality · 2011-08-01 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Part 1:
  Everyone starts out ambitious and idealistic. But sometime in your mid-20s you get saddled with car payments, medical bills, and a Lawn. Just keeping your job and trying to maintain a little free time to watch some TV is all you really aspire to. American culture is broken, and that's about all that's left of the American Dream.
  I'm not speaking about everyone of course, but demographically, any free spirit you had that survived through school gets promptly crushed when you get a job.
  Part 2:
  Teenage hackers come in a range from Stupid to Smart. The Stupid ones get caught because they do Stupid things. By their mid-20s, all the real losers have been weeded out and you're just left with the ones who can use discretion, conceal their identities, and keep their trap shut.
Extraordinary rendition by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 19:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is completely crazy. They guy was in Shetland, in Scotland, and the Met Police flew up from London in a light aircraft, landed, raided his house and flew him out on the same aircraft to London, England. He was arrested in one legal jurisdiction and is being held in another. This is like the FBI flying from Washington DC to Oregon, arresting someone, and flying them straight out to Washington again. It's not legal. Add to that that in Scotland he can only be held for 24 hours without charge but in England he can be held, it seems, indefinitely with court approval and you have an extraordinary rendition. The human rights court is going to have a nightmare with this one, and the UK is alreadytearing itself apart due to the incompatibilities of one sovereign state having two seperate 'sovereign' legal systems.
Anyway, I asked for an answer from the Scottish First Minister. He's already fighting with the 'federal' UK government over this.
Free @Topiary!
1. Re:Extraordinary rendition by m50d · 2011-07-31 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  If all it takes to get around Scotland's 24-hour limit for detention without trial is a claim of "national interest" then it's a pretty empty protection.
  
  --
  I am trolling
2. Re:Extraordinary rendition by OverlordQ · 2011-08-01 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  This is like the FBI flying from Washington DC to Oregon, arresting someone, and flying them straight out to Washington again. It's not legal.
  Hint, the F in FBI stands for Federal. They have jurisdiction everywhere in the US on Federal crimes. You're seriously deluded if you think the FBI can only arrest people in Washington DC.
  
  --
  Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
3. Re:Extraordinary rendition by TheCarp · 2011-08-01 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Welcome to the Internet. You look a little lost. Are you new here?
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
SOCA? by DryGrian · 2011-07-31 20:19 · Score: 2

SOCA (Serious Organized Crime Agency)

Is this really an organization? In other words, are they srs?

--
For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
1. Re:SOCA? by ledow · 2011-07-31 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  It is.
  It always makes me wonder what kind of organised crime *isn't* serious.
2. Re:SOCA? by Ash-Fox · 2011-08-01 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  It always makes me wonder what kind of organised crime *isn't* serious.
  Stuff like feeding the poor is illegal in certain British counties. Those aren't considered serious crimes.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:Shared the same identity by TaoPhoenix · 2011-07-31 20:59 · Score: 1

Semi off topic, but I emailed Samzenpus here and I got replies back from
From: "Robert Rozeboom"
and
From: "Bob Roberts" (This sender is DomainKeys verified)

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Re:Remember remember by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-31 21:34 · Score: 2

How the fuck did you get modded up?
Look, I realise that you people generally dropped out of your education aged 14 convinced that you were twenty times as intelligent as everyone else in your class and that you know everything already, but there's a few things your mighty intellects don't quite understand. I'll try and put it in simple bullet points.
* We live in a society with particular laws
* Like them or not, we abide by those laws, or we run foul of them
* DDoS is a crime in both the States and the UK, as is unauthorised access of a computer
* In the UK, these crimes carry a hefty fine, a year's imprisonment, or both
* Whether or not this guy from the Shetlands actually is Topiary and therefore ran the Twitter feed or not is irrelevant. If they're charging him then they believe they have enough evidence that he is guilty of crimes as laid out in the Computer Misuse Act. For that purpose, if he's Topiary he's implicated in a large number of attacks on sensitive computers. In this case, SOCA is particularly irritating the authorities
* The same goes for Ryan Cleary, who wasn't arrested for hosting an IRC channel but for offenses as defined in the Computer Misuse Act
If he's guilty of the charges he has absolutely no defence unless he can prove that he was just the spokesman. Since that's extremely unlikely (and the chatlogs that have leaked suggest that Topiary was rather more involved than merely as a mouthpiece, although chatlogs are trivial to spoof) he's done for.
Re:Because thats how to handle things. by horza · 2011-07-31 23:48 · Score: 1

How on earth did parent get modded up? He is like the other crazies that claim if we don't help Sudan then we shouldn't help Libya. So if you don't take on every "bad guy" in the world simultaneously then there is no point doing anything at all? If he knows about Exxon and they are doing bad things then he can highlight it. If somebody else knows more about Gazprom then they can highlight that. You aren't judge and jury about what other people can protest, why don't you do your own protest against Gazprom?
Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France
Re:Because thats how to handle things. by phantomfive · 2011-08-01 02:11 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, you seem to have misunderstood. I was not implying that we should take, or not take action. My point was that the GGP was an ignoramus. If you find yourself agreeing with him/her on every point, do a self-examination, for you may also be an ignoramus.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Where are the classy Mitnick-like stories? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-01 02:23 · Score: 1

Dude, that's just a script kiddie getting caught. How lame are these guys? I'm old but I do remember the Mitnick pursuit and arrest and all it's gray shades: nothing was black and white in that affair.
IIRC the FBI had to camp for days, if not weeks, seeing which lights at which house/appt in a neighbourhood matched the online activity of Mitnick, because they knew that in the "last mile" the hacker was probably hijacking someone else's network. And sure it did. And he got caught.
But at least there was some class in that entire story.
Here what do we have? Clueless teenagers getting busted like the script kiddies they are. These dudes know jack sh!t about security nor about anonimity. The only ones more pathetic than these Anonymous & Lulzec members are the ones tracking them when nobody asked. Talk about the one-eyed leading the blind or something.
It's lame. So lame.
Bring us real hacking stories.
How was it a war over oil by Quila · 2011-08-01 03:14 · Score: 1

When we get pretty much no oil from Iraq?
The first Gulf War was over oil. The second one was Junior finishing what Daddy didn't have the balls to finish. Family pride is a stupid, but not unprecedented, reason to go to war.
Got the wrong guy by GameboyRMH · 2011-08-01 03:54 · Score: 1

This guy was framed by the real Topiary as revenge for impersonating him. See:
http://www.dailytech.com/Exclusive+British+Police+Duped+by+LulzSec+Into+Arresting+the+Wrong+Guy/article22280.htm

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:Got the wrong guy by rtfa-troll · 2011-08-01 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe Daniel was framed by th3j35t3r; I think I'll wait for the forensics on the Scottish guy's hard disk before I decide. Thanks. This being the UK there's a fairly good chance we'll get to see at least the results of that instead of getting some stupid plea bargain excuse for justice. In any case, if you dig through a few more articles, the locals thought the guy "might" be German, which actually matches quite well with him being Swedish, which actually contradicts one of the main pieces of evidence in the DailyTech article..
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:I blame Obama. by Gripp · 2011-08-01 04:00 · Score: 1

There are indications that they have the wrong guy: http://www.dailytech.com/Exclusive+British+Police+Duped+by+LulzSec+Into+Arresting+the+Wrong+Guy/article22280.htm

which wouldn't surprise me as making things point to some other likely suspect is exactly what i would do if i were performing acts like hacking the CIA....
Re:Remember remember by Grumbleduke · 2011-08-01 23:20 · Score: 1

* DDoS is a crime in both the States and the UK, as is unauthorised access of a computer
Technically, DDoS isn't a crime in the UK - the offence that supposedly covers DDoS is the broader offence of "unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer etc." under s3 Computer Misuse Act 1990. I think the key word there is "unauthorised". While the recent Meltwater decision might say otherwise, it would seem odd if accessing websites was unauthorised by default, and there are some very interesting legal points in there.
Of course, we won't hear any of these legal points because the individuals won't be able to afford top lawyers, and will probably already have pleaded guilty; possibly to something they didn't actually do (as in some of the file-sharing cases). "Conspiracy to carry out a DDoS attack" sounds like either the journalists getting it wrong or the Police/courts making stuff up because they want more serious charges. However, the hacking stuff does fall under the CMA 1990, but has a maximum sentence of 2 years v the 10 years for the DDoS offence.
[For the record, Ianaly.]