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."

156 of 649 comments (clear)

  1. wow by dnahelicase · · Score: 2, Funny

    it's begun!

    1. Re:wow by drwj01 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean, "begun the clone wars have." I wonder if this is going to be the first of many instant responses to actions like this.

    2. Re:wow by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please define "it" for the rest of us. Because to most, "it" appears to be "anything that the people of anonymous take a fancy to this week".

    3. Re:wow by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah that's my thought. To be honest, if anonymous thought that jamming turkey basters in their dicks would stop scientology they would probably do it. Then rave about how it worked, while posting pictures.

      A new meme would be started, and Goatse.cx would have a new challenger.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:wow by genjix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do not stand for this flagrant abuse of our farcical democracy!

      Megaupload has been forcibly closed by the FBI. In a sickening undermining of the people’s will, they are making an example out of an historic, legitimate, useful and well-known website. This is a prophetic glimmer of the coming war against pure free speech- the internet.

      This happened once before. Here in the UK, the IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) is a censoring system for the internet. In 1996, the Metropolitan Police started requesting the banning of illegal content by ISPs in the UK. With veiled sly threats they asked that ISPs engage in ‘self-enforcement’ rather than forcing them to enforce the law on them.

      Most of the ISPs complied except Demon internet. Demon was a British ISP that contributed to the Open Source community, ran several IRC servers and were pioneers of their time. They objected on the grounds of it being “unacceptable censorship”. A few days later, a tabloid expose appeared in the Observer newspaper alleging that the director of Demon was supplying paedophiles with photographs of children being sexually abused.

      Then the police let it be known that during that summer, they were planning a crack-down on an unspecified ISP as a test-case (translation: making an example of them). Between the threats and pressure, the IWF was formed- a supposedly voluntary organisation but in fact a fake-charity and a quango. The IWF is a disgraceful secretive group with an awful corrupt history and no public oversight.

      Now we see the same tactic has been used against Megaupload. They are using the threat of violence to coerce companies, how the British police did to create their own laws. The SOPA legislation did not go their way, so they have resulted to immoral tactics of repression.

      From ACTA which is decided behind closed European chambers, the DEA which was pushed through undemocratically at alarming speed before elections, evil La Hadopi and now SOPA/PIPA in the US, there is nowhere to run. The nepotists are determined to push through these legislation. At all costs. This is not about piracy- it never was and will not do a thing. It is about control.

      We have built a tool. For all their false talk of democracy we have for the first time in history reached this epochal moment. Self determination. If they truly believed in democracy, we could have a direct-democracy tomorrow. The tools exist. Instead we see this flagrant deception. It has become acceptable for politicians to cater to the greatest common denominator. We let them off the hook on the truth like Cameron pretending to be pro-NHS or Obama pretending to be Christian because it is for voters. Since when did it become acceptable to lie! Now today we see this limp-wristed hand wringing by the US president about how he will veto SOPA. Oh shut up.

      Was it Gordan Brown who said that voting levels were dangerously low in the below-30s because youngsters today are apolitical. He wanted mandatory attendance for voters. No, we are not apolitical, we are sick of your lies and deceit. This generation is probably more political than any generation in history. In the 80s, only 5% of people in the US were members of organisations. In the 90s, 70% of Americans belonged to some kind of organisation. People are mobilising and prescient of issues.

      Libel law is atrociously bad in the UK. Payouts are 10 times greater than in main-land Europe and you get a situation where billionaires use law firms like Carter-Ruck to keep news publishers (which are poor) in court and bleed them dry. Time magazine did an undercover piece of reporting and was sued for libel. They won the case but it ended up costing them $1 million. That’s effectively a fine of $1 million for undercover journalism.

      Of course when the law is broken, what do we do? Make more laws! That is why California has brought in anti-SLAPP legislation.

      Patent law is so stupid and I won’t even go there.

      Copyright is fascist. I find it revolting that

    5. Re:wow by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Funny

      The war against the enemy: our true enemy, of which we have been ignorant for too long! Behold, the face of ultimate evil, the MPA!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    6. Re:wow by dangitman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do not stand for this flagrant abuse of our farcical democracy!

      If it's farcical, then surely abuse of it isn't a big deal? Kind of like making fun of a clown.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:wow by dnahelicase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

    8. Re:wow by John+Courtland · · Score: 5, Informative

      If there's a constant in this whole shitstorm mess it's that the clear winners are the lawyers.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    9. Re:wow by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 2

      Is this a test, Sir?

      --
      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-
    10. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      MegaUpload has a few legitimate uses, but from what I can see the piracy on the site far outweighs any legitimate uploads. Any legitimate uses seem like a way of pointing and saying, "See! Not everything on our site is pirated."

      If they respond in a reasonable time frame to take down requests, and ban users, and maybe even the IPs of the users who continually upload infringing material, then it probably shouldn't matter, they're complying with a reasonable set of laws.

      If they're slow about taking down infringing content, and don't bother banning users who continually upload said content, then it's probably legitimate that the site got taken down. Further, it seems like rather than a DNS block and cutting off their money, the FBI worked with the judicial system of the country MegaUpload resides in.

      I'm not privy to the details of the case - like how quickly they responded to take down notices - but it at least seems like this is going through legitimate channels to track down 'rogue' sites.

    11. Re:wow by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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-
    12. Re:wow by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder if this is going to be the first of many instant responses to actions like this.

      I wonder the effectiveness of these actions. I mean, how long can a DDOS be sustained? If they started really hosing systems in these retaliatory attacks, would the net effect be in their favour or against it? I mean, to me, this retaliation smirks of "Stop messing up our playground!" but the actions are merely name calling, I wonder the outcome if bloodied noses were created in the counterattack.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    13. Re:wow by Derosian · · Score: 2

      Copyright in itself is a fine idea, it is just that in the American system it has been perverted and corrupted.

    14. Re:wow by hedwards · · Score: 3, Funny

      "It" the thing that has begun.

    15. Re:wow by ediron2 · · Score: 5, Funny
      After cringing at your turkeybaster idea, would that meme by any chance involve your sig, turned upside down?

      --ow owwowowow.

    16. Re:wow by dangitman · · Score: 2

      If it's farcical, then surely abuse of it isn't a big deal? Kind of like making fun of a clown.

      It's not like MegaUpload was some kind of charity ... CEO seemed to be making money hand-over-fist. Just another side of the Machine, from my perspective.

      I was referring to the "democracy," not Megaupload. If the OP thinks democracy is so farcial, then why the strident outrage about it being abused? Also, it was a joke.

      But to be serious, the tragedy here is that moderate supporters of democracy and humanism are attacked on both sides - from the corrupt abusers of power on one side, and the extremist brick-throwers on the other. We don't really want either to run society. Does anybody believe that if Anonymous had significant power, they would be any less corrupt than the military-industrial bull-boys?

      I guess acting reasonably just isn't edgy enough to get any attention.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    17. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The RIAA still makes money hand over fist.

      Hey man, they lose money all the time, have you seen their accounting records?

    18. Re:wow by Dan541 · · Score: 3, Informative

      and still Anonymous achieves nothing for their effort.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    19. Re:wow by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "It" is the beginning of a precedent whereby Sony, Universal, or Disney, when caught violating a Creative Commons license, can expect to have its assets seized, its operations shut down, and its executives arrested, jailed and charged with "piracy."

      "It" is also a precedent whereby you can claim $500 million in losses that you don't have to report to shareholders, insurers, or the IRS.

      This could lead to seriously awesome unintended consequences of chaos.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    20. Re:wow by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?
    21. Re:wow by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    22. Re:wow by mug+funky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      new keyboard?

    23. Re:wow by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    24. Re:wow by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Copyright in itself is a fine idea, it is just that in the American system it has been perverted and corrupted.

      Which is the American system.

      The trick is to make it work for you long enough to get away with it or make enough money to influence legislation to work on your behalf.

      For a little fun, try guessing where we'll be in terms of these 'rights' in another 10 years.

      Dateline Russia: US forces have launched missiles on most major Russian cities and beachheads are established in the Baltic and along the Pacific, with the plan to push on to Moscow as soon as possible as the Hollywood Backed Government of the United States strives to overthrow the unjust Russian Regime which dared to declare 'Fair Use' with every incident of Copyright Violation.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    25. Re:wow by Fallingwater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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"?

    26. Re:wow by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Informative

      no-one chose to pay the MPAA for their services.

      Sony did.

    27. Re:wow by Binary+Boy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They were not arrested by US agents - they were arrested by New Zealand law enforcement at the request of US agents. So there's absolutely nothing unusual there. Likewise, the seized servers were in Virginia. 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.

      I don't know enough about the site to have an opinion; but if a foreign national, living in a foreign country, stole my identity and ran up charges on my US-based credit cards, tapped out my US-based bank, 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.

      And again, before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not commenting on the merit of the case, or comparing piracy to thievery, or whatever. I'm simply saying that as per the international cooperation, there's absolutely nothing unusual here, and I would hope not. This is why we have extradition agreements.

    28. Re:wow by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    29. Re:wow by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    30. Re:wow by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      Nah; you're looking too hard. The Maritime Port Authority is the first Google hit for "MPA", a typo in the submission title. :)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    31. Re:wow by SETIGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    32. Re:wow by SETIGuy · · Score: 2

      I don't know enough about the site to have an opinion; but if a foreign national, living in a foreign country, stole my identity and ran up charges on my US-based credit cards, tapped out my US-based bank, 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.

      You don't have enough money for US law enforcement to care about someone in Ukraine stealing your identity. Seriously. International law enforcement is for the corporations to use. Not you.

    33. Re:wow by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Constitutionally limited democracies work.

      Name one.

    34. Re:wow by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      the likelihood of you being introduced to musicians you enjoy is directly proportional to the assurance they have of their talent being rewarded.

      No, it isn't. Some works would be produced without any government incentive. If enjoyable music was produced in direct proportion to the government incentive, there would be none produced without a government incentive, which is contra to reality. Moreover, it would mean that you could increase the monopoly indefinitely and continue getting an indefinite proportional increase in good music, which is likewise untrue: If you provide enough incentive that an artist is already producing as many works as he reasonably can, additional incentive will not produce additional works. Providing too much incentive can even cause excellent artists to decide that they have sufficient wealth that earning more would not noticeably improve their quality of life, and then choose to retire to the beach rather than producing more works.

      If this is prevalent on an industry-wide basis, no musicians get promoted, all you get is the contrived fluffy garbage we hear today.

      Contrived fluffy garbage is not created by a lack of incentive. It is created by the nature of the market. It will always be more profitable to market one album that sells ten million copies than to market a thousand albums that each sell on average ten thousand copies. The only albums that will sell ten million copies are contrived fluffy garbage. So that is what the marketing companies promote.

      The way you eliminate the garbage is by increasing competition. You have to break the cartel, and antitrust clearly isn't interested in doing it. If instead of having a couple dozen albums heavily promoted by a small handful of labels, you had a couple hundred albums moderately promoted by a few dozen unassociated distributors, the distributors would promote "good" music because each promoted album would be expected to make fewer sales (tens of thousands rather than millions), which would mean that an album without widespread appeal but that would still sell the expected number of copies would be just as desirable to the label as the latest pop crap. But the only way you break the cartel without antitrust is by the existing players dying out and being replaced by more, newer, smaller entities. Which is what the internet enables, if we can prevent it from being destroyed for long enough for the dinosaurs to die off.

      The MAFIAA has the lobbying power to get laws written, and they will be written in direct proportion to the aggressiveness of short-sighted pro-piracy advocates like yourself, since they lend excellent argument for tougher copyright laws.

      The MAFIAA does not require anti-MAFIAA rhetoric in order to bribe Congress. Piracy is not the reason for the laws they want, it is just the excuse. The reason they want the laws is to destroy prospective new competitors to their traditional distribution cartels. Take away piracy and they will only find a different excuse.

      They're rich assholes with deep government connections, and you're openly advocating the failure of their business. How did you expect them to react?

      Well, to be perfectly honest it would be quite nice if they would react by going out of business and being replaced by newer, smaller, less corrupt entities that provide the same service more efficiently and leaving the lion's share of the profits for the actual artists.

    35. Re:wow by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      The world-wide bottom line is probably somewhere in the millions of lawyer-hours.

      Which at the standard exchange rate is only five or six man-hours.

    36. Re:wow by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      Only if you're measuring by souls rather than the traditional dollars.

    37. Re:wow by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    38. Re:wow by DinDaddy · · Score: 2

      They were not arrested by US agents - they were arrested by New Zealand law enforcement at the request of US agents. So there's absolutely nothing unusual there.

      Unless they had committed acts against New Zealand law, there is something unusual about it.

    39. Re:wow by Fluffeh · · Score: 2

      The government is not a citizen's equal. It is a force which always has vastly greater power than a citizen, and that power is often abused, as is the case with censoring digital communications.

      No, I disagree with that statement in this context. In the real world, yes, the government is more powerful than most people, but not in the cyber world. The fact that governments are so inneffective at getting what they want across is proof of this. If you asked me today who has more clout online, the US government or Anon, then I say it is Anon that holds the power. They might be hamstrung by outside influences, and they certainly don't have much ability to lobby for government etc, but in the wild, small animals who pack a big enough sting are left alone.

      The only thing that I think is stopping Anon really show how much of a stinger they have is a lack of organisation.

      If anything, I think that this whole thing will just create even more darknets.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    40. Re:wow by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    41. Re:wow by wanzeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    42. Re:wow by Thing+1 · · Score: 2

      However, it doesn't seem like the real pirates or the music/movie industry loses either - just the general population.

      Exactly. If they would provide a convenient way to watch it (Pioneer One is a great show, a bit slow to start, but the finale was rather watchable, and the torrent downloaded in under 10 minutes) that one could obtain and keep, instead of Netflix, Hulu, Youtube etc where it's constantly streaming, even if you're watching the same video several times (Party Rock Anthem) -- so much so, that AT&T just raised their rates for new subscribers.

      Sell the file for a reasonable price.

      And that includes the tiering effect; if old movies are $1 each, and you're trying to sell the new CGI explosion-fest for $60, then there will be a segment of the population who would have paid $2 through $59 who will consider downloading without paying.

      That's simple economics. And I loathe to say that; it's really simple physics.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    43. Re:wow by KermodeBear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not certain that a DDoS on the MPAA's website would have the effect of embarrassment. It seems more like a victory; "Look, our measures are effective, otherwise they wouldn't be so upset."

      --
      Love sees no species.
    44. Re:wow by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      If they employ Gurkhas

      I don't think they'd relish that at all!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    45. Re:wow by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      disney 'pirated' almost all its themes.

      how can I favor one criminal over another? how can I?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    46. Re:wow by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 2

      Don't compare copyright infringement to theft. It isn't. This wouldn't be stealing a car, this would be building a car in your back yard by looking at my car and stealing the engineering design instead of doing the math and designing a car from scratch yourself. The engineer misses out on a possible sale and his tiny percentage of the profits, but you're not taking anything from anyone, and if you wouldn't have purchased one in the first place, then you haven't even taken away a sale.

      So you too need to come up with a better argument.

      I didn't say it proved they weren't doing anything illegal. I was merely saying that THAT detail in of itself, that the CEO is profiting, is not in ANY way evidence of wrongdoing. By that logic, you could find every successful business in America guilty. (well... they might be.)

      --
      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-
    47. Re:wow by inasity_rules · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    48. Re:wow by cbhacking · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, let's stack the deck your way.

      Let's assume that there is no NZ law supporting copyright (false).
      Let's assume that there is no NZ law against apropriating the electronic data of other for your own use without consent (false).
      Let's assume that their business was entire conducted in NZ (false, heck, servers were confisacated in the US).

      But, for the sake of argument, let's assume all of those are actually true instead. Ready?

      You still lose. The whole point of extradition laws is that you agree to transfer people who are found to be criminals by another government to that governemnt's control. Iran is a stupid counterexample; we don't have an extradition agreement with them. Many countries have limits to extradition - for example, some will not extradite their own citizens to the US for crimes which the US permits capital punishment. There might even exist countries which will only extradite people who have also performed criminal acts in their current nation (by that nation's standard).

      In any case, those special exemptions to reality that I made for you above? They don't actually apply.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    49. Re:wow by rioki · · Score: 2

      Simple, follow the money!

    50. Re:wow by inasity_rules · · Score: 2

      Is it necessary to break these particular eggs? Is it sane? And is it in your best interests? Think for two seconds about the consequences of your actions.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    51. Re:wow by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

    52. Re:wow by Xest · · Score: 2

      As a slight aside, there was an interesting documentary on TV last night in the UK about Russia's relationship with the West, and it's post soviet issues with Russia's ultra rich oil barons.

      I found the documentary interesting, and it put a different perspective on things that have happened between the West and Russia over the last decade or so. They had a number of Russian politicians including Putin himself, as well as people like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice interviewed for it, so much of what was said was said with some pretty solid authority.

      It spoke of 9/11 and mentioned that when the US went to Defcon 3 as a result of that, Russia reassured the yanks not to worry, that they wouldn't see it as a reason to also increase their military alertness level, and in fact said they'd cancel all military exercises to show support for the US's response to the event. When it became clear the US was going into Afghanistan Russia also sent signals to the ex-soviet states on Russia's border that Russia wouldn't be offended by those nations allowing America to access Afghanistan from their territory - Russia effectively okay large US military deployments in nations on Russia's border. These are all things that wouldn't even be dreamt of during the cold war. There was also an interesting mention that the Taliban actually approached Russian border guards with Afghanistan to say the Taliban was willing to work with the Russian's against the Americans, and quite amusing, the Russian response to the Taliban was literally "Fuck off." - this despite the fact America had done exactly the same against the Russian's only 20 years earlier.

      But the Russian's then wanted to test how two sided the relationship was and asked about the potential of being invited to join Nato, as an opportunity to show that there really was a blooming two way relationship, but it was at this point Russia was told "we don't invite people to join NATO, they have to ask" - after what Russia had done it saw this refusal to make exceptions as quite an insult, and IMO understandably so - this was a massive lost opportunity to build bridges. The situation then deteriorated as America decided to build their missile defence system along Russia's border when America claimed it was for Russia's benefit to against for example Iran, but America refused to host part of it within Russia's border if that was the case.

      But there was another facet to the documentary which I also found interesting, it was that of how post-USSR breakup, some Russian's got rich by taking all the oil fields, because Russia's business laws post breakup just hadn't covered all the loopholes. One of the guy's in question complained that he had done nothing wrong under the letter of the law, he'd merely exploited loopholes to seize this oil, and effectively the thinking in Putin's government was in stark contrast to the West in this respect- whilst in the West we'd say (as we have with the bankers) "Well, they technically did nothing illegal by the letter of the law, so I guess we'll let them walk away with those billions", in Russia the view was more "It doesn't matter if you've technically done nothing wrong, you admit you know what you did was morally wrong regardless, and so we're taking action".

      Of course I'm not saying Russia is right, perfect or anything - I've obviously avoided the negative actions of Russia regarding their actions in Chechnya (which the US supported), and the issues surrounding democracy, or lack of, but these two issues highlighted some interesting points to me.

      The first is that America threw away some massive chances to build bridges with Russia which would've let to impressive political stability and solidarity across the world, simply because of it's own sheer arrogance. Russia was forced to realise that it didn't matter how much it gave the US, the US was only interested in Russia when it benefited to the US - it's an inherently selfish nation that isn't interested in two way relationships to such a degree that it's massively shorts

    53. Re:wow by rchoetzlein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If anyone has connected an industrial control system to a public website, that's you're problem right there!

    54. Re:wow by inasity_rules · · Score: 2

      I would imagine a combination of social engineering and physical access can bridge that particular gap. But sometimes engineers get lazy and do stupid things like forgetting hardware interlocks. I have seen SCADA systems connected to the raw internet (without even a firewall). Just because it shouldn't be done doesn't mean it isn't.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    55. Re:wow by tomthepom · · Score: 2

      No. The purpose of extradition treaties is to prevent fugitives from escaping justice by leaving the country where they committed a crime, but there are obvious issues of sovereignty and jurisdiction. Extradition treaties will always include requirements that;

      - The country asking for extradition has to have some claim of jurisdiction over where the crime happened.
      - The crime must be a crime in both countries and with similar punishments.

      So no, if New Zealand didn't have a copyright law they would absolutely not extradite one of their citizens to a country that did. New Zealand citizens living in New Zealand are not subject to US law. And even New Zealand citizens that break US law while in the US wouldn't be extradited unless there was a similar law on the books in New Zealand.

    56. Re:wow by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I doubt seriously that Disney's ride controls are connected to the internet. Afaik nothing is much different at Disney World now than when I worked there in the early eighties. And the engineers there (Disney calls them "imagineers") are pretty damned sharp, I can't see them doing much very stupid when it comes to engineering -- mechanical and electrical, at least.

      However, your "social engineering" is a bit frightening. The engineers there must have never taken any psychology courses, as evidenced by a mishap on a new ride when I worked there.

      One of the perks of being a Disney employee is you got to ride the new rides before the general public -- Guinea pigs. They had a new roller coaster in Frontier land that was supposed to be a runaway mine train. I rode it , and WOW. It went sixty miles per hour (about 100kph). If you ride it, it's only 20 mph. What happened was one stupid employee decided to stand up in the car as it went into a tunnel, and the idiot obviously thought that the rock ledge would move out of the way. It knocked his head completely off! See, there IS a cure for stupid! They reduced the speed after that particular accident. Pity there are so many idiots, that was a hell of a ride!

      If you visit the Haunted Mansion, keep in mind that someone died there! Makes it a lot more fun. One idiot tourist decided to get out of the car to get a closer look at the witch head hologram, not realising he was a hundred feet off the ground.

      Twelve people died building the EPCOT "golf ball" (I forgot its real name). Disney nor any other corporation gives a rat's ass about your safety unless it costs them money. Corporations are by nature sociopathic. Everything they do is designed to garner more profit.

      But still, driving there from Kissimmee is more dangerous than any of the rides, even if the SCADA systems get hacked. People in Florida drive like the dumbasses they are. So if you want to hack Disney's SCADA, go ahead. The death toll won't rise much.

  2. Justice down? I think not. by pseudorand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Justice down? Sounds like Justice is alive and well to me.

    1. Re:Justice down? I think not. by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just barely. The boys in Congress are tag teaming her with the MAFIAA boys and the executive branch.

    2. Re:Justice down? I think not. by Dan667 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why? Did the Feds finally crack down on Hollywood Accounting?

    3. Re:Justice down? I think not. by Threni · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Justice, though, is at best one of those words that make us look away or turn up our coat collars" - JD Salinger.

    4. Re:Justice down? I think not. by eggstasy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's some "accounting" for you:

      MPAA has 6 members: Disney, 20th Century Fox, Universal, and these three, with a yearly operating income of...

      Sony Pictures - $300 million
      Paramount - $300 million
      Warner Bros. - $845 million ... Google - $10.381 billion

      Now THAT is what I call voting with your dollars :)

  3. Wow. They did dare! by godrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Wow. They did dare! by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!

      And when they're in prison, they're going to have stuff in the other side.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    2. Re:Wow. They did dare! by Literaphile · · Score: 2

      Wow, they took down websites... good for them. Last time I checked, none of those organizations actually rely on those websites. Take down the DoJ site with a childish attack? Sure, go for it. But it's not like that will actually affect the day-to-day operations of the department itself.

    3. Re:Wow. They did dare! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Look like complete idiots"... to who? Kids on forums like you? Grownups will condemn these silly DDOS attacks (if they understand them at all), and it does not help any cause... and to people who actually understand network infrastructure (capacity planning, attack mitigation)? They know this shit can happen to anyone, even precious Google. It doesn't make anybody "look like complete idiots", it's just angry children with botnets who want attention.

    4. Re:Wow. They did dare! by sdguero · · Score: 5, Funny

      If I had tekn down the DOJ website I'd have stuff in my pants too. It'd be brown and stinky.

    5. Re:Wow. They did dare! by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My state had a judge sentence kids to a private prison that made donations to him. Pennsylvania.

      You see 50 million "pirates". The military complex and privately run prison system sees 50 million scapegoats that just paved the golden road to profits.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    6. Re:Wow. They did dare! by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yup. The Kids For Cash Scandal. You want to read about something fucking disgusting, read about that. If a judge can be corrupted like that, how could our legislature not be corrupt? They're getting millions of dollars a year from people like that...

    7. Re:Wow. They did dare! by rastoboy29 · · Score: 2

      Can we please stop equating taking down a website with taking down the entity it represents?

      Taking down a website doesn't do jack (except register a note of protest, of course).

      But it's really not very serious.

  4. Can't help but think by chadenright · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Can't help but think by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Reminds me of a line from a Douglas Adams book, referencing the distant rumble of a passed storm - leaving the impression of a man muttering "and another thing", who lost an argument 20 minutes ago. Yeah, this is a pretty poor grumble, nothing to match the heroics of Wikipedia, Wired, Google, et all who took on SOPA/PIPA in a constructive manner.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Can't help but think by alendit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All those people who dare opposing unjust laws! They are just provoking an unreasonable response! The world would have been a much better place if that Rosa Parks had just sat in the back of the bus, like she was told.

    3. Re:Can't help but think by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you believe that you can win by doing things in an orderly fashion, then you have not been paying attention to politics in the last 30 years.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:Can't help but think by chadenright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want a war, stop tearing down posters and talking big.

    5. Re:Can't help but think by bky1701 · · Score: 3

      I bet you would have complained about sit-ins in the civil rights era.

    6. Re:Can't help but think by DaKritter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, Anonymous is right.

      SOPA meant anyone could take down anyone else's website for any or none reason.

      Now Anon shows what that would mean. For once there is a actually a point in the DDoS.

    7. Re:Can't help but think by alendit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott was the direct effect of Parks' protest and caused major finacial loses for the transportation system. Now, tell me how it is different from DDOSing the living shit out of **AA and friends?

    8. Re:Can't help but think by sneakyimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We should all just roll over and do nothing

      I didn't say that. What I meant to strongly imply is that DDoS is totally counterproductive and accomplishes less than nothing. Someone else on here pointed out that airing dirty laundry of the bad guys might at least accomplish something. All this DDoS attack does is stir up the public's fear of anarchy and crime so that their elected representatives can scare them into supporting some nasty bit of freedom-stealing legislation that affects all of us.

      Beating down SOPA by rallying all the sheep in the world was a triumph. This DDoS thing is a textbook example of shooting oneself in the foot for no purpose.

    9. Re:Can't help but think by dumbunny · · Score: 5, Funny

      DOSing is not a violent act; it's just a major inconvenience for the users of the site that forces them to go elsewhere for a while. This is more akin to Rosa Parks taking a shit in the back of the bus.

    10. Re:Can't help but think by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mainly because you can't boycott their closest friend, the DoJ.

    11. Re:Can't help but think by demonbug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott was the direct effect of Parks' protest and caused major finacial loses for the transportation system. Now, tell me how it is different from DDOSing the living shit out of **AA and friends?

      Ah yes, organizing a boycott against a service versus forcibly preventing others from using said service. Clearly these are one and the same.

    12. Re:Can't help but think by migla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm no stranger to or opponent of hyperbole used figuratively to illustrate a point and, in fact, I think I often fail to get my message across when using it.

      But I suspect you are saying "heroics of Wikipedia, Wired, Google, et all" with a straight face...

      Not that it isn't unexpectedly great what they've all done, but for the corporations of the lot, I'm sure the impact on the bottom line is carefully thought through.

      Serendipitously, the actions of these are at the moment aligned with what is right for everyone.

      Publicly traded corporations are not heroic, nor good or evil.

      In general (as in this case) they will say and do whatever social darwinism will have their intestines percolate to the top and out of their PR-mouth.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    13. Re:Can't help but think by chronoglass · · Score: 5, Interesting

      soon the internet will be reduced to posting xkcd comics back and forth... and millions of years from now, when the first hard drives are finally restored, they will think they are hieroglyphs, and we.. while a generally advanced civilization, resorted to an alphabet that was 4095 comics long.. because I believe in the Randall.. but really.. who needs more than 4 gigs?

    14. Re:Can't help but think by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      USA rules: If you do that you'll be arrested.

      Protests at reasonable distance, not obstructing the flow etc are legal and protected.

      Sitting in the doorway and refusing to move will land you in a cell. Doesn't matter if it's an abortion clinic or a bank. Long settled law.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:Can't help but think by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      Obviously not legal however, misdemeanor civil disobedience vs. "terrorism". Was Rosa a terrorist?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    16. Re:Can't help but think by Wolfling1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your post made me stop and think about it for a minute. The ability to destroy the DNS so easily is clearly a weakness in the architecture of the Internet. If DoJ can do it, then we (the technical community) have clearly failed to engineer a global network resilient to single points of failure.

      Perhaps the most constructive thing we can do is re-engineer the DNS architecture so that it cannot be destroyed so easily.

      This would be a great victory of intelligence over politics - something that is way overdue.

      Perhaps some kind of Beowulf DNS Cluster arrangement. Or a RAID/striped/mirrored DNS database. One that cannot be centrally administered. In order to take down a website/DNS/Server - you need to physically shut down the server.

      Now, I have no doubt that DoJ would seek out ways to accomplish this task, but at least other countries (with more sane governments) would have the opportunity to oppose such sloppy legislation.

    17. Re:Can't help but think by walshy007 · · Score: 2

      Central administration is required, because otherwise multiple people can register the same dns names and it all becomes pointless

      Same deal with internet ip ranges, we have IANA for a reason. So multiple people don't try and use the same public ip.

    18. Re:Can't help but think by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      So we go back 4,000 years to the Code of Hammurabi? Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth means we all end up blind and toothless.

      see! again, big pharma wins.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    19. Re:Can't help but think by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

      I think Wikipedia had the right idea, to deprive (albeit temporarily) the monolinguistic English speaking world of the somewhat essential resource that is en.wikipedia.org for a day - when you control the switch like that and have the agreement of 99.9% of the editors, you can do anything. That it was for a day just to raise awareness: bravo, Sir, I think it certainly accomplished that. What's needed now, if this legislation goes through (which it likely will notwithstanding the public opposition), is the promise of permanence for ALL versions of Wikipedia - because it will not be able to function in the new, US-controlled Internet. An undernet/darknet/sidenet is what's needed (and probably a decent name for it as well), something that's more decentralised than the current environment if only to make it more resilient, and something that is run by the people for the people; corporate and geopolitical interests can jog on.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  5. Well done them... by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Well done them... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      So... the Cyber Police back-traced it?

      Man, the consequences will never be the same again!

      The opportunity to do these things is in limited supply. Each iteration of attacks exposes more of the means and the perpetrators.

      Utterly juvenile reaction. "Hey, lookit me! I can take down ur websites! LOL! Take that, teh man!"

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Well done them... by DogDude · · Score: 2

      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

      That's why open wireless networks are so great.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Well done them... by hldn · · Score: 3, Funny

      gl backtracing us cyber police, we're behind seven proxies.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  6. operative? by PaulBu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anonymous operative Barrett Brown

    Does not being Barret Brown contradicts beins Anonymous? ;)

    Paul B.

    1. Re:operative? by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anonymous? You must be mistaken - he is a member of Pseudonymous. They just like to call themselves Anonymous because, well, you can't call yourselves Pseudonymous if that's your group's actual name. It wouldn't make any sense.

  7. Not Anonymous.. by Superken7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..but regular internet users.

    The summary sounds like it was a specialized group of hackers - it wasn't it was anyone who followed a link like the following:

    http://pastehtml.com/view/blaoyp0qs.html

    1. Re:Not Anonymous.. by Shikaku · · Score: 4, Informative

      Link warning: opening this will max your internet connection to load certain websites from the title, so don't open it unless that is your intention.

  8. They need better things to do by future+assassin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Taking down sites will do nothing but give the corrupted politicians more amo. Why not concentrate on digging up dirt con corruption and start making it public? Get some incriminating info on RIAA/MPAA/Politicians.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:They need better things to do by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Get some incriminating info on RIAA/MPAA/Politicians.

      You're assuming that they are actually doing something illegal. In this society, immoral, stupid, or dickish does not mean illegal.

      --
      That is all.
  9. The Internet by omganton · · Score: 2

    Perhaps the Government will soon learn that they serve us, not the other way around.

    The Internet and the Government are by the people, for the people. This will not end until the old men in mothball scented suits understand that their rein of power is coming to a swift end. The people are united, angry and done listening to wrinkled, clueless senior citizens make laws that have no place in our modern society.

    We are on the cusp of a new generation. The next civil war will take place in a series of tubes.

  10. Oh the irony. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. *slow clap* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well done idiotic reactionaries, you've played right into the puppetmasters trap.

    Yesterday people took notice of a real issue that had both politicians and Big Media scrambling for damage control.

    Big Media responds with a very calculated move to bring down a notorious hive of actual crime, it's like setting the bait for the trap.

    Guess what will be talked about in the media for days now?

    Guess how your CongressButts will vote when they sense danger?

    GREAT JORB

  12. Staged? by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think it's quite likely this entire thing is a staged PR stunt by the SOPA/PIPA cartell to generate a little counter-press. Call me paranoid, but It apprears to me all to convenient that something like this happens just now. At least it's a theory worth entertaining, imho.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Staged? by Tom · · Score: 2

      You don't need to stage it if your enemy is this predictable.

      Yes, of course the timing wasn't accidental. Though I believe they messed it up. Doing this the day before the SOPA/PIPA blackout would have been a ton more effective.

      So, our enemies are losing it. They are making strategic mistakes. They are not in control of the game anymore. This is a good sign.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  13. good luck by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    taking the immense botnets' masters and very, very elite hackers that reside in russia and china out, without world war iii.

    1. Re:good luck by unity100 · · Score: 2

      you are comparing NZ government, with russia, or * gasp * china ?

    2. Re:good luck by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Very, very elite hackers?" You do realize you're talking about Anonymous, right? They're a bunch of basement-dwelling twats with a V for Vendetta fetish

      yeah. a bunch of basement dwelling twats with a v for vendetta fetish.

      first, if you had known zit about the underground scene, you would know that they had a 'v for vendetta' fetish LONG before even v for vendetta was published as a comic. it is the general sentiment/culture/understanding in those parts.

      second, twats with fetishes cannot break in and steal data from defense contractors, or take down major websites ranging from fbi to doj.

      and if you think that the botnet power that can take down those sites are owned by a bunch of basement dwelling twats - you are really way too ignorant of this.

  14. Begun! by Zaatxe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Begun, the Internet War has!

    --
    So say we all
  15. You think they give a shit? by AdamJS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Websites mean little compared to winning ideological battles.

    1. Re:You think they give a shit? by bky1701 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It serves to embarrass the supporters of these laws, and to some extent, show how incompetent they are in internet matters.

    2. Re:You think they give a shit? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Might I humbly suggest that if the public cared about incompetency then Sony Entertainment would no longer be in business and most nearly every PS3 would already have been recycled.

      Might I also suggest that if people cared about their digital property rights that Universal Music, EMI, etc., Paramount, Disney, etc. would be hemorrhaging money and preparing to file for bankruptcy protection.

      The war that needs to be fought has not just one front but two. The people in charge and the people who could care less.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  16. War by bky1701 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's starting. Hopefully it will keep moving. We need to get this shit sorted out once and for all.

    Unfortunately, instead of the revolt that is needed over copyright, we'll probably just end up with some kids in gitmo for the rest of their lives and another SOPA/PIPA copy passed in a few months.

    Wake up, now is the time to stand up.

    1. Re:War by gerddie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunately, instead of the revolt that is needed over copyright, ...

      indeed:

      Intellectual Property is a myth. It is invented with the backing of the threat of force of the state. It is the idea that knowledge or information can be owned by one certain company or person. The myth is perpetuated that people who copy are pirates or thieves. Even those who file share and copy movies and music have come to call themselves pirates. The problem is that it is not piracy or theft. It is theft if I take something of yours. If I copy something of someones or my own it is simply not theft, it is copying.

    2. Re:War by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      The natural form of intellectual property is called a 'secret'.

      If you think not having patent and copyright has no cost, answer me this: 'How do you make a Stradivarius?'

      Just because our laws are currently fucked doesn't mean the idea isn't sound.

      The current situation is more about 'rent seeking' behavior. Which is a fundamental problem, likely to never be solved, once and for all.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:War by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      Spoken like a true adolescent who has never created anything and who has an attention span shaped by nothing but video games. Why do you care? If you don't like what someone creates, ignore it. In your world, someone who invests years creating something should lose any right to it the moment they're done creating it. How many huge multi-year creative projects do you think will be pursued if the first leech who wants has more claim to it than the person who creates it? Just another passive, witless consumer who wants people to make stuff for him, and feels entitled because he's breathing. Grow up.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  17. Re:That'll showem by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. and really. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:and really. by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      habeas corpus is practically invalidated. introducing exceptions to condition, which can be overridden easily, does not change practicality.

      what are you expecting ? someone from govt. to come to cnn and announce that habeas corpus is no longer valid ?

    2. Re:and really. by Lando · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, go even further back to find out why it is illegal to break encryption in 1998. DMCA was/is pretty heinous as well. I agree with you, btw just offering you an avenue for more supporting evidence.

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    3. Re:and really. by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Your EXACT words were: "habeas corpus was just invalidated with the infinite detention act".

      That means that there is an act which invalidates habeas corpus. I suspect you're referring to the NDAA (which means you're parroting lies you've heard from other people on this site), but it's possible you're talking about a different bill. Either way, if there is an act that invalidated habeas corpus, you should be able to point it out.

      So do so. Or admit that you were just lying to get people outraged, and who cares if one of them goes out and shoots a cop as a result.

  19. Outcome = nothing good by toby1 · · Score: 2

    It's not really an effective "retaliation" - a site taken down by physical raids and arrests is not just offline, it's gone and all the content is gone. These (probably) DOS attacks just cause downtime and nothing is really lost except face.. So now what? DoJ etc log some service calls with providers, reset a few things and it's back like nothing happened where MegaUpload is offline until some new person decides to setup shop. Result = nothing good, BAU, *sad face*

    --
    Thou Shalt Ignite That Which Burns.
  20. DDoS? by Sebastopol · · Score: 2

    As much as I want to see a vigilante internet group of elite white-hat hackers send a potent message, a DDoS is hardly effective. It grabs a headline or two, but in the end, does nothing.

    Too bad l0pht/CDC went legit.

    *sigh*

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  21. Idiocy by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Idiocy by sdguero · · Score: 2

      And detonating the bombs at the security checkpoint...

    2. Re:Idiocy by Bucky24 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's like protesting the TSA by putting bombs in your luggage.

      Considering the track record of the TSA they probably wouldn't even notice the bombs...

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    3. Re:Idiocy by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      It's like protesting the TSA by putting bombs in your luggage.

      Not really. I think this behavior is counterproductive, but it's not like they're replicating the behavior meant to be stopped by SOPA/PIPA by any means.

  22. I expect a lot of criticism directed at Anonymous by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..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.
  23. now its a party by gearloos · · Score: 2

    Now it's a party. Too bad they forgot to invite Sony...

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  24. What's begun? by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:What's begun? by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

      I was in the middle of downloading old One Tree Hill episodes, when megauppload got yanked. Will I suddenly go out and buy the DVDs??? Ha! Not likely. The show was fun to watch when it was free, but I'm sure as hell not going to pay for it.

      I'll go find a different form of entertainment, like watch Free TV over my antenna, goof-off on youtube, or go read a book.

      The RIAA/MPAA just doesn't get it. They are NOT losing money because most of us never had any intent of buying their shit in the first place

      .

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:What's begun? by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude you forgot to click 'reply anon'.

      Now everybody knows you watch that crap. It's your fault they make more of it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:What's begun? by one+cup+of+coffee · · Score: 2

      How does this get modded troll? It's actually very honest and insightful, even if you disagree with him, at least he's got the balls to tell the truth. This whole farce is based around tricking the people into believing the lie of scarcity, and this goes way beyond cheap entertainment, if people only know it also included food, and many other basic human resources, the whole world order might be up for change. Of course, the most important enforced scarcity of all is information, thus we have things like SOPA.

  25. "internet spring" by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:"internet spring" by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      today's action by the DoJ was basically a big "fuck you" to due process and working within the system.

      How so? They convened a grand jury to look at the evidence, then got warrants, and now they're filing charges. That IS due process. I'm suspect about whether or not the evidence is genuine, but I haven't seen it and neither have you, so it's way too early to say whether or not this was a legitimate action.

  26. Useless move by Windwraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  27. Completely different thinking by roguegramma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  28. Re:SOPA by pclminion · · Score: 2

    Good going, Anonymous. Way to go, way to justify the surveillance-state.

    Taking down a couple websites temporarily? You're fucking kidding, right?

    All it justifies is punishment against those who carried out the attacks. Will the government crack down because of this? Maybe, but that's taking the bait that has been set out for them. Don't you get it, that's the whole point -- it's like a little kid daring him parent to hit him. Oh, you may want to... But you better not do it.

  29. The Scientologists Were Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it's time to start going after the industry lobbyists individually, with all the legal and bureaucratic brutality that's been so effective for the Scientologists.

    I'm not talking about killing anyone or violating the law in any way, but engaging the system to make the lives of individual lobbyists as hellish and unlivable as possible.

    Nobody goes after the CoS anymore. Not in any way that would actually be a threat to them. Why not take a page from a book that actually worked, for once?

  30. Take action now. by RandomAvatar · · Score: 2

    I am absolutely pissed that the U.S. government has the audacity to do something like this. I am not a cracker, nor am I going to take any action that is illegal in my country. However, I do plan on taking action, and I encourage you all to do the same. Call your MP or whoever the government official is in your area, pester the hell out of them with your worries and complaints. Do the same to whoever is in charge of foreign affairs through the appropriate channels. This cannot continue.

    Right now I view the U.S. as a mix between China and the terrorists of Alcida. If you are a U.S. citizen, please do whatever you can to stop the madness in your government. If this keeps up, your government may start WW3 with itself in the place of the axis of evil.

  31. Hard to respect Anonymous by bjdevil66 · · Score: 2

    I appreciate Anonymous for going after who they perceive to be wronging people, but I can't really respect them because they're inconsistent. They lost my respect when they chickened out after they threatened to go after the drug gangs in northern Mexico.

    Sure, Anonymous - standing up over digital rights is noble, but that's easy when the only threat to you is a lawyer. When human lives are on the line, however, and you have a chance to make a REAL difference in the world with something more web site rights, and show some real value to society, you - and a lot of your reputation, IMO - disappeared.

    It was the one case where your group's name really fit your moves...

  32. Re:That'll showem by Mad+Leper · · Score: 5, Informative

    ".. They were compliant with the DMCA, from what I understand.."

    Apparently not, try ars technica for what these scum were really up to

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload.ars

  33. What I want to know is... by anotherzeb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Will they keep wearing the masks on which a license fee is probably paid to a SOPA/PIPA backer? Haven't they seen the irony in this since they started using them?

    --
    Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
  34. Update by guttentag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  35. Re:Calm down everyone by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Welcome to the Reichstad.

    Got a light?

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  36. What else can we do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it were physically possible to "picket" an Internet site (something which is LEGAL in the physical world), we'd be doing it. But it isn't, so... what do we do? The goal is to change minds which means influencing people who do NOT already agree with you, or who may not even be aware of what you're fighting for.

    What's your suggestion? Door-to-door petitioning? Good idea, here's the problem. There are 350 something million people in this country. Can you reach them all with people on the street? Yes, but how long does it take? Compare that to the ability of massive media companies to reach those same people, whenever they want however often they want, with whatever MESSAGE they want. TV and radio, these are basically enormous PA systems that belong to private parties, who have huge advantage over any individual, hell even any collective of individuals, in terms of making people hear a message. Oh, and Congress seems to really like these guys too.

    Even though there are millions of us and only a few of them, we can't get the message out as effectively. The Internet is the only thing that promises to change that. Don't you understand? The Internet changes the way power and control flow through the social relationships on this planet. This has got to be the most terrifying thing ever to any major power. Seriously, just look at the role of social media in the worldwide revolutions over the past year.

    The US government is shitting bricks that something like that could happen here. So what happens? Out of nowhere come SOPA and PIPA, bills which threaten to shut down precisely the same web sites which are used for this freely flowing communication: sites where users can post unreviewed content in real time. Sites like Facebook. Twitter. Slashdot.

    Need I even continue writing this damn post? Isn't it clear that what we want to say is MORE IMPORTANT than what the RIAA and MPAA have to say? No really, you stand there and tell me with a straight face that what has happened to copyright and intellectual property in this country in the last 30 years is a good thing.

    The Internet is our power right now. We simply can't allow it to be manipulated by corporate and political interests. If we use it right, we might just be able to come up with a system of government that makes the world better.

    The takedown of MegaUpload the day after the SOPA/PIPA blackout was a message from the powers that be, have no doubt about it. What you are seeing is the reaction of angry people to a situation they feel no control over. You should just be thankful it isn't violent.

  37. Re:That'll showem by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Informative

    "What law was MegaUpload breaking?"

    The indictment is quite specific, and not a difficult read. I wonder how many of the people who are already in full protest mode have read it?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204616504577171180266957116.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  38. It is worse this time, we are not fighting the MAN by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    This time, we are not fighting the man, the elite, the rich. We are fighting U2, the media, the free press. The press has a role in democracy as the watcher of the entire political system BUT this only worked when newspapers were separate enough and not forced to report on issues that go against their own interests.

    In Holland, commercial radio licenses are up for auction to the highest bidder. Commercial radio presenters always very quick to bitch about other people going on strike saw no issue with taking the radio waves hostage to protest a new auction round that might jeopardize their own million euro jobs. Bye bye fair and balanced reporting, hello self interest.

    The traditional newspaper is already dead, most are now part of vast media empires and that means that the press when reporting on media is reporting about it self. You wouldn't expect a newspaper owned by the Ford company to report fairly on cars would you? Then how can you expect newspapers owned by Murdoch to report fairly on media affairs? The BBC has been called out for unfair media practices and conveniently, the BBC itself completely failed to report on this, how odd.

    When the likes of Bono from U2 call out the US on food aid, or make a song about British war crimes in Ireland, that is as expected but do you hear him about a certain 2 letter band performing in South Africa during the apartheid? Do you see media thriving on interviews from the band, reporting on it?

    For the free press to work as part of the checks and balances of our system, the free press needs not to be just free from government control but from any form of control, including its share holders. But that hasn't been the case for a long time.

    Take Futurama, it has done an episode that could have been payed for by the MPAA but it wasn't. It didn't need to pay for it since the two are rubbing the same belly, a totally one sides presentation of copyright because the person doing the telling has both the means to tell it and the motivation to tell it. What TV producer is going to present a balanced approach to copyright when their salary so clearly comes from one side of the story?

    ---

    An example that might require some abstract thinking:

    Do you trust the "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" to honestly award the oscars based on the quality of the movies submitted? Well, you might or might not but they are after all industry experts or at least members of the industry.

    BUT even if you accept the Oscars are unbiased, do you expect these same people to give an unbiased answer to the following: "How important are movies to our civilization"...

    THINK really hard about that question. It is is asking a surgeon if an operation is the right medical procedure to cure something. A make up retailer on whether women need to wear make-up. A car dealer on how important it is to own a car.

    A fundemental question that we need to answer when dealing with copyright is whether we need the content that needs copyright. No commercial musician, tv producer, movie maker or writer is going to say "no, for thousands of years content/art has been produced without copyright so we don't need it even if it means I no longer can earn a living with it because art will survive through people who do it for fun, not for the money".

    Even if the discussion comes up in the media, the premise that we NEED commercially produced art, is not up for discussion.

    Does this matter?

    The car industry had to be called out in the past on cars being unsafe. This only was possible because there were people outside the industry with a hearable voice who dared to pose the concept that cars did not have to be dead traps. That it was possible to work towards a goal of zero car fatalities. How would the move to safer cars have gone IF the entire discussion had only been done by people who had taken it for granted that each model would kill a few dozen people as an unchangeable fixed constant?

    It is becoming clear that the patent and copyright

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  39. Re:Even better by Windwraith · · Score: 2

    I don't know what you perceive of me, but if asked to not buy something, I am more than happy to oblige. Specially because I have no money to spare, and I have no concept of "brand loyalty". They be loyal to ME first, and later we'll see if I am loyal to THEM.

    We aren't talking bank of america (read: influences people's money, hence it's maximum priority) we are talking MEDIA like videogames, music and movies. How can you dare calling me apathetic on something that is not even required for day-to-day survival? I am apathetic, but about them and their products, that's where I am apathetic. Thus, they don't see a penny from me, I won't recommend their products to anyone, and I won't even care about their releases, I don't even download them, because they suck. I not only have more money for survival, but I am not wasting my time with their inane superhero movies, cookie-cutter FPSs and heavily filtered pop singers. I don't even pirate their garbage, it's not worth it. Sure, I might miss out on one or two good things, but it's media, I don't need media other than to kill time

    I can teach you a thing or two about boycotting those idiots. And I still believe boycotts, for media, do not work. Check the sales of the DRM-filled games that everyone calls boycott on, but they still sell millions every time. How do you call that other than "boycott not working"?
    As long as people feels the need to purchase the lastest movie/album/game, boycotts will fail. Thing is, I don't know there that "need" comes from, because in the latest years, media releases are just excuses to test out new content blockers/DRM instead of releasing new content.

    Fucking kids, now get off my damn lawn.

  40. It doesn't matter. by Brain-Fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It doesn't matter. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      I like to call this blowback from the "will of the governed."

      When the Justice Department closed for business, and avowed War Criminals get to walk around after having playing cards made for people they wanted to assassinate without the benefit of a Nuremberg or even military trial. When Wall Street and Oil companies paid off their regulators and ran their own game.

      Well, THAT is what creates Anonymous and things like it in the digital age.

      See, Corporate taxes are now below 7% of the government's revenue now when they used to be about 40%. But what those fans of a "police state" don't realize, is that their NEW tax is going to be paying for body guards, bullet proof glass everywhere, and some hacker they cannot trust to watch the programmer they cannot trust to protect them from a million Anonymous script kiddies with mayhem in mind because now everyone is as ruthless as they are.

      It's all fun and profits when YOU are the only rat bastard.

      Anonymous likely has never hurt any corporation or entity that didn't also do the same thing to someone else -- only those stories don't get printed in the sponsor driven papers.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  41. Re:That'll showem by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

    Ha, I like the part where they show that Megaupload aka "The Mega Conspiracy's" diligent removal of child porn is evidence that it had the capability to remove all copyrighted material. Clearly Megaupload's biggest failure was not leaving more pictures of naked kiddies up for the feds!

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. I suspect this is all about the lawsuit by Arker · · Score: 2

    The indictment appears to be the product of someone with a rich fantasy life.

    In reality, I rather suspect the move is really a reaction to MegaUploads current lawsuit against Universal. That suit was shaping up to be quite damaging to Universal, but now with MegaUploads assets seized, they are no longer in a position to pursue it. How convenient.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  44. Re:Political channels by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Given the level of momentum turning toward the Big Brother state, there may not be that many "mature" political channels left. In case everyone missed it, they found a new weapon against "peaceful protest" - ridicule.

    Occupy Wall Street was the first/best civil protest we've had in *decades*! The result? The media planted a few Laugh Off stories about some of the "Boys Will Be Boys" activities going on the sidelines and then the cops busted it all up, and we didn't have a followup. That's because they quietly destroyed B.W.B.B. those same decades ago, with the final lock as a nifty side effect of the 9-11 theme. "Oh look, ten thousand protesters aren't as orderly as school children or cowering workers!" Uh... protesters are ... angry, that' the definition, right?

    The interesting thing is Slashdot has chosen to let the trolls post come ill or shill, because it's part of Taco's original foresight to the abuses of over-modding TOS policies now creeping everywhere else. The mod system could use a couple more finesses, but it's *us* modding each other, not the editors. That's starting to become a Meta-Experiment in the current climate.

    I'm quite lenient with my mod scores - I only mod down the absolute lowest of the vulgar offtopic junk, or the "random word generator" posts, or the shock pics. I stay out of the "Shill - Anti-Shill" wars.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  45. Re:Political channels by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

    The UPSIDE of this media orchestrated ridicule is that more and more people don't think the Media is legitimate -- other than of course fans of Fox News who think CNN is somehow "Liberal" because it's less obviously for pinheads.

    When I hear from OWS and other groups like them -- they sound legitimate. Legitimacy is becoming more and more a social media networking experiment -- echoing the "small town" of long ago. I'm sure that's why Facebook is so important -- but I'd caution anyone trying to manipulate public opinion here too; In order for people to LISTEN, they need to get value from the exchange. If people don't have jobs, justice, or opportunity -- you cannot tell them that their friend's sister said "this is the best of all possible worlds." The skunk gets defriended pretty quickly.

    The moment for me where the Media became the annoying drunken uncle was when Howard Dean's innocuous "Yeehaw" was sampled and broadcast on almost every TV station about 2000 times per channel for two weeks. The normal staid and thoughtful Dean was instantly painted as a kook.

    The DOWNSIDE of the "friendly network news" system is the creation of Bubble realities. IF you are an intelligent design scientist with part time membership in a militia and your greatest fear is Canadians crossing the border to steal our jobs -- there is likely a group of like-minded individuals ready to listen to your sage echo of their own thoughts.

    >> Americans have been used and abused by commercial messages and our government has been bought and sold, and the people who "buy into it" are going to be in the minority soon. It's got to be disappointing that after Clear Channel got 80% of the radio stations and News Corp built their empire, they've got a majority stake in that annoying buzzing sound we tune out.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"