Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Takes Down DOJ, RIAA, MPA and Universal Music
First time accepted submitter EW87 writes "Shortly after a federal raid today brought down the file sharing service Megaupload, hackers aligned with the online collective Anonymous have shut down sites for the Department of Justice, Universal Music Group and the RIAA. 'It was in retaliation for Megaupload, as was the concurrent attack on Justice.org,' Anonymous operative Barrett Brown tells RT on Thursday afternoon."
Justice down? Sounds like Justice is alive and well to me.
I guess the war has now begun. Taking down the department of justice is a clear start of all hostility. I am not sure I agree with them. But they have stuff in their pants!
With friends like that for the cause of freedom of the internet, who needs enemies? I have to think that they just -increased- the odds of draconian legislation being passed to help contain outbreaks just like this.
I'm certain the feds can back-track the traffic and find more ip addresses to servers which were compromised and home addresses which controlled them. The net isn't as loose as it once was and the more this activity happens the more tools the feds will build to track and back-track.
Short term victory, that's all.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Anonymous operative Barrett Brown
Does not being Barret Brown contradicts beins Anonymous? ;)
Paul B.
The CITIZENS of the country who elect and send representatives to make laws for them, cannot do ANYthing against the repression those representatives rain down on them - from nullification of habeas corpus to censorship. if they do, they are pushed into 'free speech zones', or batoned down in public ............. but, those who are dubbed as 'criminals', react on their behalf with unmatched efficiency that would put the biggest picketing protest to shame....
when things come to this point in a society, it means that that society, with everything in it, is broken beyond repair and needs a total reset.
Read radical news here
Websites mean little compared to winning ideological battles.
Because breaking the law will show the law enforcers that they are wrong for taking down a site that was breaking the law. Yeah! You go!
What law was MegaUpload breaking? They were compliant with the DMCA, from what I understand. They were simply a file repository for their users.
you think that, if they havent done that, no crap like sopa pipa schmogga would be out ?
there werent any such hacktivism back in 2005. and yet, they popped out the attack on network neutrality at that year. apparently they have been cooking it since 2-3 years. and also the rumors of acta starting came out that year. so, it was probably underway from a while ago, but noone knew.
wake up. this is a war, and they treat you as their enemy. they were BENT to do these, to implement censorship, REGARDLESS of what you did.
you havent engaged in any acts of terrorism. neither your neighbors. in fact, there hasnt been any case of domestic terrorism in the u.s. since 2001.
and yet, habeas corpus was just invalidated with the infinite detention act ..............
see ? it doesnt matter whether you behaved. they will do it regardless.
hacktivism only reminds people that all is not lost. and governments and corporations are not all that powerful. in that, its something good. its like the gestapo prison air raid british did in early ww ii. it was strategically unimportant, but the deed was so courageous and so irritating to germans that it broke the air of invincibility around them and gave morale to both allies and the french resistance.
its time for you to say 'viva la resistance !'. for you are already under occupation in america.
Read radical news here
Yes, taking down sharing sites is bad. But vigilante attacks at a time when the government is already itching to censor the internet are fucking silly. It's like protesting the TSA by putting bombs in your luggage.
"it" = the next wave of the "we are stopping piracy in defense of America" vs "screw you guys - you aren't as good as us - we'll take down your site to prove it"
The same war everyone has been having since Napster. These takedowns won't stop piracy. Site takedowns won't cause any harm to the lobbying organizations. Both sides will use the acts to fuel their respective fires.
In the end, the internet gets less open - the industry loses out on innovation because they are fighting - and the "costs of war" mean nobody wins.
However, it doesn't seem like the real pirates or the music/movie industry loses either - just the general population.
..but despite that, I'll be a bit less politically correct and give a little sign of appreciation: good targets, guys. MPAA, RIAA and the greatest copyrights troll of all, Universal. Good selection.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
not to put a damper on things, but how does this really hurt any of these groups? I might be able to buy something on Universal Music, but I'm not very likely too. The other sites are just business portals. All Anonymous really did was mildly inconvenience some low level employees trying to log into their corporate intranet. Meanwhile MegaUpload's still down and the owner's still facing criminal charges and decades in prison...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
While the SOPA protest yesterday was effective, today's action by the DoJ was basically a big "fuck you" to due process and working within the system.
So fine, you want a war, you got one. For every site they take down, we need to take down 5 or 10, and not just for one day, for as long as is possible.
The time to be peaceful and work within the system is obviously over. Occupy Wall Street was nowhere near as effective as Arab Spring, and that's because we were not throwing Molotov Cocktails and shooting cops.
Ok, we got the message. No matter how hard we try and work within the system, you will CHANGE the system to be to our disadvantage.
So fuck you.
Now it's war, complete with the cocktails and shootings, until things really do change.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
It's not like MegaUpload was some kind of charity ... CEO seemed to be making money hand-over-fist.
All that proves is that MegaUpload was providing value to people.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
What the hell, Anonymous? What damage does hacking DoJ or the RIAA/MPA sites?
Hack iTunes, hack Netflix, hack pages that offer services whose money goes to RIAA pockets. If you shut down a page that offers nothing, what you get is nothing. (except being charged for (pretty much) terrorism without causing any significant damage to the people you want to attack).
Anonymous should damage their SOURCES OF REVENUE, not their useless face sites.
How about arguing that the law can crack down on megaupload just fine shows the lack of necessity for SOPA and PIPA?
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
Just wait till parents can not order Disney crap for their kids online. Wait till Disney Worlds SCADA systems get taken down and has to shut down for a week.
They can do more than name calling.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Honestly, I don't give a rip how they made money, even if it was all from blatant piracy. To me, the problem is that the US has no legal authority to arrest people living and working in a foreign country, who have never set foot in the US, no matter what they did. I don't care if they were grinding up kittens and using slave labor; it's the responsibility of the country they're in to police their activity, not the US arresting them for breaking laws in a country they've never been in.
If you (plural, general) disagree, then you need to fly yourself to Iran and turn yourself in for breaking their laws, as I'm sure you've broken some of their laws. And you need to send your wife and daughter to some village in Afghanistan to be stoned to death for not covering themselves in public.
Irrelevant. They're located outside the US, therefore US law does not apply to them. If you disagree, you need to fly yourself to Iran to be charged with breaking some of their laws, as I'm sure you have.
I see a lot of venting and ranting, but not a lot of info about what actually has or has not happened. No one seems to have noticed some of these Web sites are up and running.
copyright.gov is up
DOJ is up
RIAA seems to be down
MPAA is up
UMG is down
BMI is down
OK, now that we've got those facts sorted out, the next question is who cares?
This isn't like a DDOS attack against Amazon or Google. None of these organizations, government or otherwise, depend on their Web sites to transact business. Copyright.gov is an informational resource that contains reference material you can find in many other places. No one cares if it's down. Did you even know it existed before it allegedly went down? Justice.gov exists to inform the people about what the department is doing. That's it. If Anonymous wants to raise awareness about the DOJ's activities, taking their site down has the opposite effect, and does not hurt the DOJ. When was the last time you visited the MPAA or RIAA site? Is that where you're going to look to decide what movie you want to see tomorrow, or what music you're going to buy on iTunes? And UMG and BMI's businesses don't depend on their Web sites... their music is marketed and sold elsewhere.
We've known for about 12 years now that it's really not that hard in the scheme of things to DDOS even the biggest sites on the Web. Remember the shocking 3-hour attack on Yahoo in Feb 2000? The prevailing thought then was, "If they can shut down Yahoo, they can shut down anybody." This was a legitimate concern because with its site down, Yahoo's business does not exist. But these attacks are being directed at sites where it really doesn't matter. All it does it generate a scary-sounding news headline. Some of Anonymous's other antics have some real world implications for their targets... this does not.
More importantly: MU is visited by millions of people, gets shut down, causes problems to said people.
Now I'm not american so I dunno about the DOJ, but who ever goes to the *AA websites? How is their enforced lack of presence from the net a damage to the corporations behind them? What's the point, other than "waahh, waaahh, stop messing with our toys"?
So I assume you'd see the same parallel with drug dealers?
Yeah, honestly, I would. The only reason why they make the money they do is because drugs laws are retarded; they ruin the lives of simple users, do nothing to stop actual drug use or the cost of drug use on society, and foster organized crime. Even in places where the penalty for possession is death or life imprisonment, people get caught smuggling drugs constantly.
If they legalized drugs and regulated them, they could take the criminal element out of the equation, put the proceeds towards treatment as opposed to incarceration, and actually make people's lives better, but the DEA and CIA make far too much money off of drugs and the war on drugs for that to ever happen.
I believe what the gist you are trying to say but failed too articulate, IMHO, is that ...
Authority without Accountability is never a good idea in the long run.
Anonymous are a bunch of little shits* who think they have some power - which they do for now. Their belief is the "end justifies the means" except they haven't (yet) learnt the lesson that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." We'll see how much of an influence they have in the coming years ...
The "problem" is copyright is not respected by the youth =) Which I say Good for them!
* Not all civil dis-obediance is bad.
"If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable." ~Louis D. Brandeis
"it" appears to be "anything that the people of anonymous take a fancy to this week".
Are you new here? That is exactly what "it" is. The purpose of some portion of Anonymous is exactly what that portion of Anonymous says it is today. But they probably aren't talking to you. Tomorrow some portion of anonymous will decide to do the same thing, or something else. Pray that some portion of anonymous doesn't decide that making your life difficult would be teh lulz.
And that's why Anonymous will still be here tomorrow. There are no "leaders" to arrest. Because everybody speaks for Anonymous, nobody speaks for Anonymous. Anyone who tells you why Anonymous does something probably wasn't there when the decision was made.
Support SETI@home
It doesn't matter how immature Anonymous is being, nor how their efforts are non-productive or even counter-productive. None of that matters to them because it is simply human nature to strike when angered.
Arrest every single member of Anonymous, and another group will spring up to do the same thing. This is because their behavior is a direct consequence of their situation: real human beings perceive that they are the victims of harmful and unjust laws. So, they will do what history has demonstrated again-and-again to be human nature: strike the oppressor.
This response was entirely predictable. And as the government passes even more restrictive laws, and becomes even more draconian in their enforcement, more and more people will get pissed off and will fight back.
Some will fight back through proper political channels. Most feel too politically disempowered for that, so they will fight back more directly. More enforcement will only add fuel to this fire.
Unless the authorities capitulate, things will only get worse. Many innocent people will get caught in the middle and harmed, but that won't inhibit the "revolutionaries" for a second. They will fight until they are satisfied. Count on it.
All of this has happened before and this will all happen again. Those who remember history are doomed to watch it be repeated.
In the end, the internet gets less open - the industry loses out on innovation because they are fighting - and the "costs of war" mean nobody wins.
Historically forcing sites offline by legal means have always lead to increased copyright infringement. People see it as a personal attack against their actions and beliefs (i.e. file sharing is okay) and so are even less inclined to give the bastards doing it money.
It also spurs development of new technologies that can't be taken down and which hide the user's identity. We should thank the RIAA/MPAA for improving privacy and security for all of us and ensuring our supply of free content is secure and invulnerable to legal attack.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The only problem with this is that all those ankle biters and their parents are going to blame Anonymous, not Disney.
Still, it is nice to see the man get some payback, even if counter-productive.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Who is going to bring the charges? Who is going to pay for years of red tape in court? An individual?
Even comparatively powerful nonprofits like the EFF don't have the resources to follow through on a copyright counterattack. Even if they did, it would simpy be retaliation, no more effective than a halfhearted DDOS for bringing about any real change.
That is why the campaign against SOPA/PIPA is so important, right now represents one of the few times we the people actually have a say in the copyright matter. And if they do pass, in any form, we have lost. I would expect the Patriot Act to get repealed before SOPA would.
Please people. Do not screw with industrial control systems. They are interlocked (hopefully in hardware as well, but not always) for safety. Messing with them can actually kill people. And lets hope they're not connected to the net at disney world. I hate copyright abuse as much as the next guy, but do you really want to start terrifying and killing kids on disney world rides? That is so messed up. Its one thing to hit a RIAA website, another to screw with something powerful that you don't really understand.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
"Whatever you might think of the case itself, your outrage over the method of the arrest is a little misplaced - we have mutual extradition agreements with many countries."
It's not misplaced, these extradition agreements were set up under pressure from the US to allow extradition of terror suspects and so forth after 9/11.
Now the US is using them to extradite for things that aren't even illegal in the home country, and arguably not even in the US either.
This is why in the UK there's so much uproar about the extradition treaty being one-sided, in theory it's actually not, but in practice it is because whilst the UK only asks for extradition of, for example, American citizens who have committed murder whilst in the UK, or joint British-American citizens who have committed say fraud, whilst in the UK, America is requesting extradition for British teenagers who have run websites deemed legal in Britain.
The fact is, America is abusing the system well beyond what it was intended for.
"I would sure hope that US law enforcement (assuming they investigated and agreed there was enough evidence to prosecute) could get the cooperation of the government of the foreign country where the thieves lived and have them extradited for trial here."
Why would they have to be extradited? why couldn't they face justice in their home country?
There is something unusual here, just like there's something unusual with the case of the guy from Sheffield in the UK last week - these people are facing extradition despite doing nothing illegal in their home country, to the point that even the police in their home country saw no point pressing charges. In this particular case there's a big problem - the extradition treaty does say the act must be illegal in both countries, yet here in the UK we've had an idential case (the Oink case) where the guy was found not guilty of any wrongdoing, yet this case was completely ignored by the presiding judge in favour of a completely different, but largely irrelevant case that did justify extradition - obviously there is something fishy going on there, it may be incompetence, or it may be corruption, but something is not right- I wouldn't be surprised to find it's the same in these other cases too.
For what it's worth, in that case the FBI was personally involved, they were present when the kid's computers were seized at his house. I'd be amazed if the FBI wasn't present during these nesw raids too, so sure they may not have power of arrest, but they were certainly at the scene dictating what they wanted in at least this one case.
Now you can argue it's the fault of the host countries for allowing this, and I'd agree to an extent, but the reality is America does have power in the world and there are only so many things you can piss it off over before you risk suffering economic isolation. When America abuses it's power like this it can be hard for countries to say no. With America's power comes responsibility, but it's abusing that right now.
If anyone has connected an industrial control system to a public website, that's you're problem right there!