Is Eccentric Sven Olaf Kamphius To Blame For Spamhaus DDoS?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Eccentric Sven Olaf Kamphius To Blame For Spamhaus DDoS?

Posted by timothy on Friday March 29, 2013 @08:33PM from the well-be-does-have-sort-of-a-guilty-look dept.

RougeFemme writes "Sven Olaf Kamphius, self-described 'Internet freedom fighter,' is reportedly at the center of the investigation into this week's alleged cyber-attack against Spamhaus, a group that fights Internet spam. Mr. Kamphius became incensed when Spamhaus blacklisted two companies that he runs, including Cyberbunker, a company that, earlier this week, claimed be under attack from Dutch swat teams. Though he initially solicited support for a DDoS against Spamhaus, he now disavows any direct role in the cyberattack, which threatened to slow some web traffic to a crawl."

133 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

s/iu/ui/ by OttoM · 2013-03-29 20:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah, I know, dutch double vowels are confusing...
1. Re:s/iu/ui/ by Pro-feet · 2013-03-29 23:06 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Easy!
  
  aa ee ie oo uu ui ei ij au ou eu oe eeu ieu aai ooi oei
  
  I love my language!
2. Re:s/iu/ui/ by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:21 · Score: 0
  
  Me too, but I think the spelling needs some work.
  Let's change ie into ii and ieu into iiu for the sake of consistency. Drop ij since it's the only non-consonant that drops below the baseline to be more systematic, and of course also because it's redundant with ei. Children have to spend useless hours figuring out which words have ei and which ij and that time could be used more productively. On that note, drop ou in favour of au. The only problem I don't have a ready solution for is oe which is spelt like a diphthong, bit is actually a monophthong.
  Of course the Germans are chanting that we should have used the u for that, but then how are we going to spell /y/? Besides, I don't really like the Germans telling us what to do and they can keep their bloody umlauts to themselves.
3. Re:s/iu/ui/ by Opportunist · 2013-03-30 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  But ... but they make pronouncing heavy metal bands fun!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:s/iu/ui/ by Pro-feet · 2013-03-30 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  By the way, "koeieuier" is a real word!
5. Re:s/iu/ui/ by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, since the New Spelling, not anymore. Nowadays the word would be written ‘koeienuier’. Which is less impressive, although even in the old days the i wasn't a vowel in this case, so maybe the word didn't really deserve its fame to begin with.
6. Re:s/iu/ui/ by flyingfsck · 2013-03-30 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  In Afrikaans Nederlands it is koeiuier. One less vowel.
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
7. Re:s/iu/ui/ by gzuckier · 2013-03-31 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Spamhaus would be a great name for a band.
  
  --
  Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
We blaclist him too... by Delgul · 2013-03-29 20:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I heard an interview with this guy on the dutch radio and he is obviously a moron. He managed to contradict himself three times in as many sentences and obviously has no idea about how SH works. His servers are on our blacklists too and with good reason...
1. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  I second that. I really hope they prosecute this guys to the fullest extend of the law. We can really miss pigs like that.
2. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 21:07 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The moment he's prosecuted, he'll become a hero around here.
3. Re:We blaclist him too... by Zan+Zu+from+Eridu · 2013-03-29 21:36 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  He's not a moron (in spite of his eyebrows), he just plays one. This guy earns a ton by providing services to well known spammers and other criminal organisations, but every time he makes the headlines and gets interviewed he either plays the naïve internet activist or the village idiot, depending on his public.
4. Re:We blaclist him too... by mwvdlee · 2013-03-29 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  Dutch "Openbaar Ministerie" (public prosecution) is currently looking into the issue.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
5. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 21:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The moment he's prosecuted, he'll become a hero around here.
  What is it with Slashdot's (and other geek sites) support for criminals when they are geeks? Much of the vocal community supported Reiser very strongly when he was accused of killing his wife, interpreting and analyzing 'evidence' making the 'solid' case he was obviously set up - until he capitulated and showed the police where he had buried her. Same with Assange. Suddenly everybody here are experts in Swedish law, and know with certainty what did and did not happen, based on their expert analysis of select tidbits of information through secondary sources. At first a lot of people here claimed (with 'evidence') the women didn't even exist, while they were being interviewed by local media. As a Scandinavian following the US geek discussion of that case was part scary part funny. Our Kim Dotcom 'hero' has a long history of criminal activity (not the alleged copyright infringement, but real criminal credit card fraud, theft of calling cards, stock fraud, embezzlement, insider trading). Regardless of whether Kamphuis is behind the DDoS attack or not, his company has been proven repeatedly to host spammers. And still I can see the pattern repeating, just as you predict.
6. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 21:51 · Score: 0
  
  Unlikely, Spamhaus is hardly a friendly company but Cyberbunker is on the bottom rungs of internet society, essentially servicing criminal activity. It sounds like their business is only to make money from shady dealings and then they have the audacity to launch massive DDOS attacks when caught. Total hypocrisy, accusing Spamhaus of extortion and then focusing overwhelming resources on (unsuccessfully) taking them down. I hope this guy serves a good few years in prison and loses a fair bit of money.
7. Re:We blaclist him too... by alexgieg · 2013-03-29 23:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  What is it with Slashdot's (and other geek sites) support for criminals when they are geeks?
  Partly a bias the name of which I forgot, in which you require extraordinary amounts of proof against a member from your own group compared to what you'd require against someone from another group; partly the fact we like their tech and are worried further developments will be disrupted; and partly because technologists are usually on the anarchic side of things and don't see much (but not all) of what these people are accused of as morally wrong even if it's illegal (the "law isn't justice" dichotomy).
  That said, there are certain technologies that are themselves disruptive to other technologies, spam being the prime example, and thus those who defend it are seen as doing something morally wrong, precisely the case here. But there's a nuance in there. Technologists, although mostly anarchic, are also meritocratic, valuing technological prowess. Thus, if a highly skilled hackers manages to invade a system managed by a low skilled system administrator, that isn't seen as a simple invasion, but as a master teaching an apprentice a hard lesson so that he can figure out his deficiencies and improve (that the apprentice's boss doesn't see things this way is of no consequence). In any case, brute force techniques such as spammer delivery systems, DDoS via botnets and the like aren't themselves displays of skill, they're just displays of brute force. Developing such a system sure, is a clear display of skill. Using it, not so much.
  
  --
  Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
8. Re:We blaclist him too... by Viol8 · 2013-03-29 23:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "What is it with Slashdot's (and other geek sites) support for criminals when they are geeks?"
  A large proportion of Slashdotters are still at the Stick-it-to-the-man age - anything up to 21-22yo, (maybe 25 if they're particularly immature). Rebelling against, parents, teachers etc. So in their eyes anyone who does have a go at The Man (even if The Man is you and I) is automatically a cyber warrior hero in their eyes.
  Luckily a lot of kids, most probably, don't suffer from this self important self righteous bollocks and even the ones who do eventually grow up and see that their actions are immature and counter productive. Unfortunately in the meantime we have to put up with a small subsection of the same age group doing the same old rebellious shit thinking they're changing the world and making life difficult for everyone else in the process. Plus ca change.
9. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:34 · Score: 0
  
  Kamphuis will undoubtably serve time in prison for the attack (which was clearly him, Spamhaus do not name names unless they are sure and Kamphuis was all over the place claiming it was him and telling people how he did it). I would not be surprised if he is extradited to the US because of the criminal attack on Cloudflare's infrastructure, they obviously filed a criminal complaint too.
10. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  He's not a moron (in spite of his eyebrows), he just plays one.
  This guy earns a ton by providing services to well known spammers and other criminal organisations, but every time he makes the headlines and gets interviewed he either plays the naïve internet activist or the village idiot, depending on his public.
  Sociopath? Check.
  Pandering to the current audience? Check.
  Vocal idiotic supporters who'll defend him no matter what he does? Check.
  He should probably run for political office.
  He's perfectly qualified....
11. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe because Reiser, Assange and Dotcom do/did things we as geeks can approve of, whether or not they're also criminals?
  Kamphius supports spammers and that's about all he does. You'd be hard pressed to find people sympathetic to him even if he is a self-proclaimed internet freedom fighter.
12. Re:We blaclist him too... by Charliemopps · 2013-03-30 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  Because he's going to get railroaded with shitty evidence, the court isn't going to have a clue what any of it means, and then he'll get sentenced to 50yrs for something that the victim claims had little effect on their operations. It's not that he isn't guilty (I have no idea if he is or not) it's the farce that surrounds such trials that every despises, and the sentencing is ridiculous. He's should have to pay their costs for overtime to keep their sites up, any other damages that occurred and then serve a YEAR max. Murderers and rapists get less time than most computer related offenses.
13. Re:We blaclist him too... by ultranova · 2013-03-30 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  A large proportion of Slashdotters are still at the Stick-it-to-the-man age - anything up to 21-22yo, (maybe 25 if they're particularly immature). Rebelling against, parents, teachers etc. So in their eyes anyone who does have a go at The Man (even if The Man is you and I) is automatically a cyber warrior hero in their eyes.
  
  The Man is not me. The Man is the 1% who are turning the world into a giant Panopticon and looting my pockets. I assure you, I'll hate them every bit as much no matter how old I get, and pity those who don't for suffering from a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
14. Re:We blaclist him too... by Viol8 · 2013-03-30 01:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "The Man is not me"
  The Man is you if your internet access or activities have ever suffered because stupid little fuckwits on yet another cyber crusade for [insert cause of the week here] have screwed it up.
  "and looting my pockets."
  No one is looting your pockets. Learn some basic economics.
15. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? I got the impression that Kim Dotcom was almost universally hated over here, and most of Slashdot's discussions on the recent issue favoured Spamhaus. Almost all comments about Kamphuis are negative.
  The Reiser and Assange cases are more complicated, as you well know. (It was embarrassing that half Slashdot tried to pretend Reiser didn't do it, even though he had a perfectly sensible motive... I'm not saying he's a bad person, but he certainly killed her. As for Assange, even if he did what he is accused of, it is clear that he was accused with an ulterior motive. And that matters.)
  But those are exceptions, because of the particulars of those cases. On the whole, Slashdotters don't look particularly amoral to me.
16. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  Because he's going to get railroaded with shitty evidence, the court isn't going to have a clue what any of it means, and then he'll get sentenced to 50yrs for something that the victim claims had little effect on their operations. ..if he was prosecuted in the US. This the Netherlands, he might actually get a fair trial and a proportionate sentence.
17. Re:We blaclist him too... by PopeRatzo · 2013-03-30 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  I heard an interview with this guy on the dutch radio and he is obviously a moron.
  I'm sorry to hear that. I was hoping with the name and accent and all that he'd at least have Bond supervillain intelligence and could be played in the movie by Mads Mikkelsen.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
18. Re:We blaclist him too... by gmack · 2013-03-30 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  That name must result in a lot of very disappointed foreigners.
19. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  Because he's going to get railroaded with shitty evidence, the court isn't going to have a clue what any of it means, and then he'll get sentenced to 50yrs for something that the victim claims had little effect on their operations. ..if he was prosecuted in the US. This the Netherlands, he might actually get a fair trial and a proportionate sentence.
  Really? I thought the Netherlands just let everyone off with a light slap on the wrist.
  This guy should be tried and possibly sentenced fairly but the US is far too harsh and the Netherlands is far too soft.
20. Re:We blaclist him too... by 1s44c · 2013-03-30 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  You say this guy has supporters but who are they? Everyone on here hates him.
  Maybe the spam scumbags like him, but everyone hates them too.
21. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  what was so "complicated" about the Reiser case?
22. Re:We blaclist him too... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-03-30 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Partly a bias the name of which I forgot, in which you require extraordinary amounts of proof against a member from your own group compared to what you'd require against someone from another group
  Is "In-group favoritism" the name you are looking for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
23. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  For the sake of your children/future children/kleenex babies, grow up.
24. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  The Man is not me. The Man is the 1% who are turning the world into a giant Panopticon and looting my pockets. I assure you, I'll hate them every bit as much no matter how old I get, and pity those who don't for suffering from a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.
  I've read more substantive bumper stickers. Who are the 1% and what are you doing about them? Are you leading some kind of life that somehow doesn't make you part of the problem, or would you be yet another person grousing about globalisation while pouring your money in to the very system you claim to hate?
25. Re:We blaclist him too... by demachina · 2013-03-30 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the current Fed campaign to hold interest rates artificially low for years going on a decade is in fact a form of "looting my pockets". Economist refer to it as "financial repression". In addition they rig the inflation rate computation and report it much lower than it really is, primarily by leaving out food and energy. They've also printed trillions of dollars since 2008 so they are debasing the currency, and are paying basically nothing on savings deposits so they are in fact stealing from people quietly but very efficiently.
  Your only option to not be victimized in this way is to pour your money in to relatively dangerous stocks and commodities too, and get out before the current bubble pops and the the next crash. Real estate used to be a fairly safe investment but in recent years has become dangerous as well due to bubblesâ¦ caused by the Fed holding interest rates too low for too long.
  Central bank actarions are proving to be a very effective tactic to make people invested in the stock market, which are disproportionately 1%ers very rich and is causing another huge increase in income inequality.
  The only reason the dollar isn't completely destroyed at this point is the EU, China and Japan are all printing money furiously too. Since everyone is doing it all currencies are being debased at the same time which makes it look like all is well.
  Central banks printing trillions and using it to bankroll government sovereign debt is almost certain to not end well, like Weimar republic and Zimbabwe not well, just give it time.
  
  --
  @de_machina
26. Re:We blaclist him too... by Hentes · 2013-03-30 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Because many here are liberal anarchists who don't believe in law.
27. Re:We blaclist him too... by drinkypoo · 2013-03-30 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  What is it with Slashdot's (and other geek sites) support for criminals when they are geeks? Much of the vocal community supported Reiser very strongly when he was accused of killing his wife, interpreting and analyzing 'evidence' making the 'solid' case he was obviously set up - until he capitulated and showed the police where he had buried her. Same with Assange.
  You have here used a cheap technique of propaganda to conflate Reiser and Assange. So tired of that kind of cheap shit from people too afraid to create a throwaway slashdot account.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
28. Re:We blaclist him too... by Opportunist · 2013-03-30 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's priorities. I don't know Reiser's wife, but I know his file system. It don't know the women Assange allegedly raped but I know of his work. And Reiser's system as well as Assange's work is more important to the geek community than their alleged crimes. Does that "justify" those crimes? No. But bluntly, I neither care about the wife nor about the women. I do care about reiserfs and wikileaks. Take a wild guess what side I'll root for.
  Kimmiboy is another issue, and personally I'd love to see him disappear in Gitmo with no return ticket, even though I'd consider that an unfair and cruel punishment for all the poor people who are locked up there or have to serve their duty there, but that's a personal issue. Kimmie has done more to soil the "hacker" reputation than any combination of real hackers combined. But I ramble.
  In a nutshell, whether people will attack or defend a suspect will mostly depend on their stance towards his other work. And in the current case I highly doubt that he'll be labeled a hero. He's a quack. Not much unlike Kimmie, actually, just way less ... refined.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
29. Re:We blaclist him too... by Opportunist · 2013-03-30 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well, luckily I'm not in Cyprus, or I might disagree with that last statement...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
30. Re:We blaclist him too... by Opportunist · 2013-03-30 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry. As long as the world economy relies on the USD, this won't happen. And as long as the US keep stomping on everyone who ponders aloud switching to another currency for their international trade needs, that won't change.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
31. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  not everyone backed reiser. I thought he was guilty. A shame for all involved.
  Assange... well, gee, we like to know when our government is murdering children and lying to us.
  And this... Fuck spamhaus. As far as I am concerned they are tyrants. Replace spamhaus with a transparent body with acountability and rational actions and you have my backing. They care nothing for the collateral damage they cause and want others to pay and suffer for their philosophies. It's that whole 'if you are not with us you are against us' bullshit. Not a fan.
  1..2..3.. before some lunatic accuses me of being a spammer. EABOD.
32. Re:We blaclist him too... by Opportunist · 2013-03-30 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  I used to believe in laws. Back in the good ol' days when laws were put into place to create a balance, to protect those that could not protect themselves from those that wanted to abuse their position of power.
  It's kinda hard to remain on the side of the law when it abandoned this function and sided with power against the ones it should defend.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
33. Re:We blaclist him too... by alexgieg · 2013-03-30 03:13 · Score: 2
  
  The Man is not me. The Man is the 1% who are turning the world into a giant Panopticon and looting my pockets.
  It depends. Globally, if you own about $500k in stuff you're in the top 1%. A house counts, a car, a TV etc. all count. Do you? If not, about $60k will put you on the top 10%. And even if you aren't there yet, if you're in a first world country, absent a catastrophe there's a very high probability at some point you will.
  
  I assure you, I'll hate them every bit as much no matter how old I get, and pity those who don't for suffering from a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.
  Every single older person out there will tell you they thought so at the same point in their lives. You're human. You're a typical human at that. You follow the exact same psychobiological patterns of human development the other 7 billion people currently living and the 40+ billion who lived before went, are going and their descendants will go through. Just wait and see.
  
  --
  Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
34. Re:We blaclist him too... by Opportunist · 2013-03-30 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  It does sound like a place where you could have a good time, doesn't it?
  Then again, a lot of things sound a lot more funny in Dutch.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
35. Re:We blaclist him too... by alexgieg · 2013-03-30 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Is "In-group favoritism" the name you are looking for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
  
  Yep! Thanks!
  
  --
  Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
36. Re:We blaclist him too... by Opportunist · 2013-03-30 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone HERE does. I tend to think that /. is still, at least to some degree, filled with people who have at least a higher than average intelligence and a hint more knowledge about the inner workings of the internet and such.
  But then again, despite the ever higher climbing UIDs, we're a tiny minority.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
37. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  Well, luckily I'm not in Cyprus, or I might disagree with that last statement...
  You mean that people who speculated in loaning their money to banks which paid unusual and unsustainable high interest rates have been looted when the bank went bankrupt and they lost part of the money they had put in above the insured amount (100k EUR)? And the alternative is that other people who did not do this speculation should bail them out through their tax money?
38. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  I used to believe in laws. Back in the good ol' days when laws were put into place to create a balance, to protect those that could not protect themselves from those that wanted to abuse their position of power.
  It's kinda hard to remain on the side of the law when it abandoned this function and sided with power against the ones it should defend.
  In the US a majority of the people forfeited their influence by not voting. If you look at countries that have high voter turn out, like Scandinavia, "the system" end up siding more with the people and checking power better. Not perfect, but better.
39. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  not everyone backed reiser. I thought he was guilty. A shame for all involved.
  Assange... well, gee, we like to know when our government is murdering children and lying to us.
  And this... Fuck spamhaus. As far as I am concerned they are tyrants. Replace spamhaus with a transparent body with acountability and rational actions and you have my backing. They care nothing for the collateral damage they cause and want others to pay and suffer for their philosophies. It's that whole 'if you are not with us you are against us' bullshit. Not a fan.
  1..2..3.. before some lunatic accuses me of being a spammer. EABOD.
  The discussion about Spamhaus is interesting. Their only real power (to abuse if you think so) is what others willingly choose to give to them, by using their service. I've been on the wrong side of a spam block list because we had an an open relay, and had as you strong opinions on how they operated (less strong now, for various reasons). But still, a lot of presumably informed people who disagree with us give them the power they have.
40. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  " Same with Assange. Suddenly everybody here are experts in Swedish law, and know with certainty what did and did not happen" With Assange "we" do know what happened. From the womans testimony there was no rape, he was just being a dick (no pun intended).
41. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  " Same with Assange. Suddenly everybody here are experts in Swedish law, and know with certainty what did and did not happen" With Assange "we" do know what happened. From the womans testimony there was no rape, he was just being a dick (no pun intended).
  You have read the women's full testimony in Swedish? From what source? And you are fluent in Swedish rape laws?
42. Re:We blaclist him too... by Opportunist · 2013-03-30 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  If I was in the US, rest assured I wouldn't bother voting either. I really don't care which of the two industry puppets that have a chance to win is going to screw me over.
  Fix your voting system and you might see people actually going out and voting in it. Else it's not much different from the whole election circus that existed in the former East Bloc.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
43. Re:We blaclist him too... by Opportunist · 2013-03-30 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, I'm talking about the people who live there, lived there, have earned their money there for their whole life and of course have a savings account in their own country. Ya know the kind, the average Joe out there who isn't a financial genius, who just wants to have a little nestegg for his retirement years.
  The booty of those you mentioned is safe. After all, the "account freeze" only affected banks in Cyprus. Not their branches abroad. So you may rest assured, everyone who had money there that they could have lost already bailed. They were neither affected by the "withdrawal halt" nor by the 300 Euros/day limit imposed now. What's left now is people for whom losing money actually becomes an existential problem.
  I wouldn't rely on that 100k insurance right now either, btw. Because ... well, who's left to foot the bill now?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
44. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 13:51 · Score: 0
  
  I really don't miss the days when I gave a shit what Spamhaus thought. They are worse than the problem.
45. Re:We blaclist him too... by skegg · 2013-03-30 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  Me personally: I'm not a fan of not voting. I say vote for a minor party / individual. If nothing else the stats may shake up the big boys.
  Here in Australia, I've been on a mini-campaign for years urging family / friends / anyone-who-will-listen to vote for any party that is NOT one of the 2 majors.
  I suspect there are many other Australians who share my sentiments:
  we currently have a hung-parliament (i.e. neither major party has a majority, the current party in government is relying on other parties / independents to form a government).
  I hope that the seats held by the 2 major parties continue to erode over the coming years. Make no mistake, I don't particularly like the independents ... I just think (hope?) that the 2 majors need to be humbled, big time.
46. Re:We blaclist him too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 21:54 · Score: 0
  
  Because if the facts that have been laid out in court (according to Slashdot's articles) are true, Reiser isn't actually a bad person. He killed his wife, but someone else in his position could have easily been made to do the same. So it isn't a simple story of ‘bad person kills because he's a psycho’.
  Of course, it's still possible that Slashdot's (and other source's) articles themselves didn't give a neutral picture, but if so, you cannot blame us for that.
47. Re:We blaclist him too... by jellomizer · 2013-03-30 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  World wide the 1% is anyone who makes over $35k USD a year.
  In the United States there is over 300 million people. 1% of that is 3 million people.
  Do you think you can keep a conspiracy with 3 million people?
  We (Americans) live in a Democratic republic. The problems we have are complex and the electorate wants easy sound byte answers. (It is the rich people's fault, tax them until they are poor. It is the governments fault get rid of all government services and regulations. Get business out of government. Get government out of buisness)
  No one will run on a platform of, lets first organize these problems in order of importance. Then handle each one in order, seeing where the problem points are and how to fix them. Knowing quite well some problems will be fixed with more government and others with more commercial support. Some will just need public education or propaganda (in the good sense ) to get the public to change a destructive behavior.
  It is too Complex for average joe to see if they like the guy or not. Oddly enough some of the most corrupt leaders are the most affective for good. And some of the good politicians just can't get a single thing done, because they are risk adverse.
  So we elect sound bites, not leaders. We all know this and we hate it, but we still do it.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
48. Re:We blaclist him too... by Sigg3.net · 2013-03-31 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not apologizing, but wouldn't that be defending the group's identity?
  I just watched TPB AFK, and it really brought across the message (to me anyway) that behind "heroes" are regular people. TPB and the case of free information culture (whether separate or not) is better understood and stated by everyone else than the 4 guys of TPB.
  But I sympathize with them, uncritically, because I recognize a geek anywhere, being one myself.
  I can recommend the film! It was more nuanced than I'd expected.
  
  --
  Defining Statistics and Social Research
49. Re: We blaclist him too... by peawormsworth · 2013-03-31 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  ... says AC to AC.
50. Re:We blaclist him too... by Xest · 2013-03-31 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  This post is stupid, you're implying Dotcom and Assange are criminals when they've not yet been found guilty of anything. This says more about your bias than it does about the majority of Slashdot supporting them.
  Specifically though, both Assange and Dotcom have support outside the "geek" community too, in fact I'd wager in Assage's case at least the majority of the world's population recognise there's something really fishy.
  For me in the UK, it's rather obvious that something is up, we can trivially extradite Assange in abnormal circumstances (we've never extradited anyone who hasn't been charged before) and where it's pretty clear, given that Sweden wont give a guarantee that he wont be extradited on to the US (this is something the Ecuadorian ambassadors have officially requested and had denied) where he could genuinely face the death penalty, but we can't extradite Abu Qatada who has been previously found guilty of supporting terrorism and even being complicit in a bombing because of fears that evidence obtained through torture will be used to convict him and where it has been confirmed that he will not face the death penalty (because we apparently never extradite when there's a threat of death penalty, well, unless it's Assange). There's a clear disparity between the way the two cases have been handled that implies that something is definitely not right.
  So sure on one hand you probably have some people (I say some, this is a large and varied community remember?) believe people are innocent just because they are fellow geeks and nothing else, but then on the other you have people like yourself who claim people are criminals well before there's any confirmation of that.
  The rest of us just look at the facts, and are capable of recognising independently when something smells fishy, when logical reasoning and simple fact finding shows clear inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, and the case of politicians who have become involved by making statements about what we can and can't do to ensure fair trials that are clearly not true given past evidence to the counter.
  Personally I think this Kamphuis guy sounds like a complete cock, I'm not really one to say he's guilty before he's convicted, but at the very least what I am comfortable saying is that there is enough evidence that he's not done enough to keep criminal activity off of his hosting platform that Spamhaus were correct to add his servers to their blocklist.
  "At first a lot of people here claimed (with 'evidence') the women didn't even exist, while they were being interviewed by local media."
  FWIW I never saw any such claims, but in what kind of fucked up country do they call it a good idea to have alleged rape victims being interviewed on TV before any charges have been brought, let alone any conviction a good idea when it comes to obtaining a fair trial? In most normal countries with a fair sense of justice this in itself would be grounds to throw the trial out in that it would mean there would be no hope of guaranteeing a jury that hadn't been prejudiced by what they'd seen in the media.
  It seems the reason you take issue with people "defending" these folks is because you don't believe in justice, you believe that accusation alone is evidence enough of guilt. I say this, because I don't see people inherently defending these people per-se, what I do see however are people defending the right for these people to have a fair trial. There's a lot fishy in the Assange case (and Manning case for that matter), and a lot of evidence that justice is not being done, and just because Dotcom was a criminal previously doesn't mean he's guilty of any crime now.
  You may not like justice, you may love mob rule, and that's fine if that's what you want, but the countries were talking about at least pretend they believe in justice, so that's the standard people like me and many other Slashdotters are going to hold them to. If these people are guilty at the end of it (like Reiser was) then so be it, I think everyone h
51. Re: We blaclist him too... by Zaelath · 2013-04-01 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Meta AC is right though. And as for the "support for criminal geeks"; believing the best in people is the default, it has nothing to do with ./ or any other group.
  Whining however does track very closely with certain groups, who interestingly are enough in abundance on a "biased" site to rate that drivel as 4/insightful.
Yes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 20:56 · Score: 0

says Betteridge
Cyberbunker lied about location by mwvdlee · 2013-03-29 21:34 · Score: 5, Informative

For those who can't read Dutch, and thus rely on second hand sources:
http://www.automatiseringgids.nl/nieuws/2013/13/cyberbunker-niet-meer-in-bunker-kloetinge
Claims Cyberbunker hasn't used the bunker location since 2010. I guess that explains why the claimed SWAT thing wasn't reported in Dutch news (and also why they waited to pose so nicely on the picture). The bunker location is currently property of http://www.bunkerinfra.com/ which apparently has several such locations and has nothing to do with the old occupant.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
1. Re:Cyberbunker lied about location by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  He has not only been lying about having a bunker and operating "Cyberbunker" from it, when the real bunker has in fact been owned by another company with whom he has no connection at all for the last 2 years and they say he's an idiot they last saw when they bought the bunker 2 years ago, but when he did have a couple of 'servers' in the bunker many years ago it was visited by Dutch police (after a fire broke out) and they found just a few servers in one room and an Ecstasy Lab in the room next to it. That story here: http://americablog.com/2013/03/spamhaus-accuses-cyberbunker-of-massive-cyberattack.html
2. Re:Cyberbunker lied about location by Incadenza · 2013-03-30 01:11 · Score: 2
  
  I guess that explains why the claimed SWAT thing wasn't reported in Dutch news (and also why they waited to pose so nicely on the picture).
  The picture on their site does not even a show SWAT team (which would be a ‘arrestatieteam’), it shows ‘Mobiele Eenheid’, i.e. Riot Control. Or does anyone think they would use those batons to hit the bomb-proof door? Also, that kind of shield is good against bricks, but not against bullets.
  Mobiele Eenheid is very seldom used for police raids. They only keep these at hand when they suspect a lot of bystanders that will interfere with a riad (trailer parks, really bad neigbourhoods), not when they raid a bunker.
3. Re:Cyberbunker lied about location by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  "Cyberbunker, het bedrijf dat in verband wordt gebracht met de grootschalige DDoS-aanval op spambestrijder Spamhaus, werkt al minstens tien jaar niet meer vanuit de voormalige militaire atoombunker te Kloetinge."
  This says in Dutch that Cyberbunker last used the former NATO site at least ten years ago (or longer).
  We can see here that Kamphuis is just a greedy bastard, trying to make money off spamming. He's a total fraudster.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ralsky - let's hope he will end up like Ralsky. Thanks to Spamhaus, they nailed Ralsky.
4. Re:Cyberbunker lied about location by sgt+scrub · 2013-03-30 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  "trailer parks"? What is up with the trailer hate? Parkies are people to thank you very much. :P
  
  --
  Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
More misinformation about the swat episode by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 21:55 · Score: 2, Informative

They never said once they were under attack by SWAT teams, their website merely states they have in the past successfully slept-through an attempted SWAT raid that failed at the blast doors. Whether or not this is even true is questionable. It was most certainly not recent however.
1. Re:More misinformation about the swat episode by DarkOx · 2013-03-29 23:20 · Score: 0
  
  It would be fun have an old missile silo or something with hardened blast doors and then watch the fun on hidden camera if you got SWATed or something.
  I'd love the police goon squad to show up at an address with their usual battering ram, automatic small arms, and tear gas, only to discover they can't get through the door and have been played to boot.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
2. Re:More misinformation about the swat episode by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:22 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  their website merely states they have in the past successfully slept-through an attempted SWAT raid that failed at the blast doors.
  SWAT teams are well known for just giving up and going home if they can't get in, of course.
3. Re:More misinformation about the swat episode by dreamchaser · 2013-03-30 01:28 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, it would be so entertaining to watch police be diverted from actually fighting real crime over a prank. Think about what you said. There is *nothing* funny or entertaining about 'SWATting', regardless of whether you are the one perpetrating it or the target, or just a spectator.
4. Re:More misinformation about the swat episode by DarkOx · 2013-03-30 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it would be so entertaining to watch police be diverted from actually fighting real crime over a prank
  In the case of general police offices sure; your sarchasam is well placed but not for SWAT. Where SWAT teams are concerned anything that impairs them is a good thing. The police are supposed to be a civilian force; not a paramilitary unit. The entire idea of SWAT teams on police forces is abusive. If this situation calls for a SWAT team than its so out of hand that its not simply a criminal matter any more its a rebellion and should be dealt with by National Gard at the direction of someone clearly accountable (the governor).
  The reality is these teams get used where they are not needed. Yes its probably safer for officers in body armor to kick in your and shoot anything that moves. The trouble is the job of civilian law enforcement is 'capture' not kill. I am not saying officers should not carry a service pistol to defend themselves when required or there is never an occasion where they might need to use potentially lethal force. Its to easy for mistakes to be made though when your local police chief is conducting what amount to military operations. Its not really their job in the first place; its scope creep.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
5. Re:More misinformation about the swat episode by drinkypoo · 2013-03-30 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it would be so entertaining to watch police be diverted from actually fighting real crime over a prank.
  False dichotomy. Third option, hoovering up donuts and harassing the populace on specious grounds. At least half of my interaction with cops have been pure bullshit, pulling me over on a lie to get a better look at me. Pulled over for no bumper when I clearly had one, pulled over for making a perfectly legal pass on the right and then he claimed I hadn't stopped at a sign which I had, etc etc. But now I drive a Mercedes and if I forget to put my tags on all year I don't get pulled over, they just run my plates and then elect not to pull me over. Fascist, prejudiced pigshit. Everything is funny about watching cops run around in circles with pie on their faces instead of out harassing people to maintain a culture of fear and control.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:More misinformation about the swat episode by danomac · 2013-03-30 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Naw, if they can't bomb the blast-proof door, they just move a few feet down and blow a hole in the 6" wall.
7. Re:More misinformation about the swat episode by mjwalshe · 2013-03-30 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Actually many European countries have paramilitary police forces there is a lot of difference between the constabulary model and a gendarmerie.
8. Re:More misinformation about the swat episode by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 22:07 · Score: 0
  
  This story is set in the Netherlands, so when the cops aren't fighting crime it's normally because they're drowning in paperwork.
BAD TIITLE !! SHOULD BE ... !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 22:12 · Score: 0

FIFY !!
"Is Islamic Terrorist Baby Killer Funny Ass Name Sven Olaf Kamphius to Blame for Spamhaus DDoS ??"
Re:Not his fault by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:02 · Score: 0

we already are trying so hard
ill be bringing this up at our next"take over the internet" club meeting
thank you for your interest
Certainly stupid to ask the question here by macraig · 2013-03-29 23:11 · Score: 1

If someone had objective evidence, as opposed to an opinion or a feeling, that Kamphius had masterminded or participated in the campaign, then they would have already come forward publicly. They certainly would not withhold the information and then suddenly be inspired to reveal their secret just because Slashdot decides to speculate about it. Asking the question here just generates traffic but does nothing at all to answer it.
1. Re:Certainly stupid to ask the question here by thaylin · 2013-03-29 23:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  He posted to his facebook that he was behind it, of course he has sense deleted it. On marge 21 he wrote
  
  "Hi Spamhaus, despite allowing your crap to be back up for a day or so, i see our demands still have not been met. stand by for more.".
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
2. Re:Certainly stupid to ask the question here by thaylin · 2013-03-29 23:23 · Score: 0
  
  bah since
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
3. Re:Certainly stupid to ask the question here by macraig · 2013-03-29 23:50 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't invalidate my point that trying to foment discussion about it here is point-less and serves no purpose except to drive traffic, does it? I have misgivings about helping drive the traffic by commenting.
4. Re:Certainly stupid to ask the question here by thaylin · 2013-03-30 00:17 · Score: 0
  
  No, it just invalidates the first part of your point, not the entire point.. But than again this is a site that needs to make money to live, so driving traffic is not necessarily a bad thing.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
5. Re:Certainly stupid to ask the question here by MysteriousPreacher · 2013-03-30 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't invalidate my point that trying to foment discussion about it here is point-less and serves no purpose except to drive traffic, does it? I have misgivings about helping drive the traffic by commenting.
  Then stop posting. If needed suggest Slashdot adds something to the FAQ to explain how to not post comments. Also suggest they add something to help people distinguish their personal opinions from objective points.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
6. Re:Certainly stupid to ask the question here by macraig · 2013-03-30 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Driving traffic isn't always evil, but drivel like this doesn't offer much value in return for it! There's no value in speculating about whether he did or didn't. Does Slashdot aspire to become the Enquirer tabloid of tech news? Now there's a question worth some speculation! :-)
7. Re:Certainly stupid to ask the question here by stoatwblr · 2013-04-01 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  I thinkt his is the "more" https://greenhost.nl/2013/03/21/spam-not-spam-tracking-hijacked-spamhaus-ip/
Threatened to slow web traffic to a crawl. by skitchen8 · 2013-03-29 23:39 · Score: 1

I find this hilarious. I am picturing some 1's and 0's threatening some other 1's and 0's.
1. Re:Threatened to slow web traffic to a crawl. by Opportunist · 2013-03-30 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  I see an XKCD in the making.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Not his fault by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:39 · Score: 0

why is this comment labeled "troll" ?
some people don't understand sarcasm? or some people don't read articles before they comment?
Criminals now just say "I'm an Activist!" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:39 · Score: 0

It is amazing that you can now do any crime you like, no matter how criminal like massive DDoS, and when caught you just have to say "I'm an Activist!".
1. Re:Criminals now just say "I'm an Activist!" by 1s44c · 2013-03-30 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  It is amazing that you can now do any crime you like, no matter how criminal like massive DDoS, and when caught you just have to say "I'm an Activist!".
  You wait until the muggers, drug dealers, bank robbers, and serial killers hear about that one.
Ladies, start your engines by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:40 · Score: 3, Funny

From TFA:

"He describes himself in his own Web postings as an Internet freedom fighter, along the lines of Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, with political views that range from eccentric to offensive. His likes: German heavy metal music, "Beavis and Butt-head" and the campaign to legalize medicinal marijuana. His dislikes: Jews, Luddites and authority."
Anyone want to put that profile on a dating site to see if it garners interest?
1. Re:Ladies, start your engines by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  From TFA:
  
  "He describes himself in his own Web postings as an Internet freedom fighter, along the lines of Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, with political views that range from eccentric to offensive. His likes: German heavy metal music, "Beavis and Butt-head" and the campaign to legalize medicinal marijuana. His dislikes: Jews, Luddites and authority."
  Anyone want to put that profile on a dating site to see if it garners interest?
  Sounds like most Dutch people to me. Most of them like/hate the same stuff. Normally they hate on the Muslims more than the Jews though.
Not as black and white as people think by spikenerd · 2013-03-29 23:53 · Score: 0

Everyone hates SPAM, so obviously Spamhaus is good and Cyberbunker is evil...

...except, SPAM exists because SMTP is broken, and we can't fix SMTP because of the network effect, and SMTP is not really awful enough to fix because ...wait for it ...Spamhaus. So, it is not entirely clear to me that this guy who fights for a free and open Internet is really the bad guy. Wouldn't it be better if we actually FIXED THE PROBLEM instead of suppressing anonymity to compensate?

No pancake is so thin that it has only one side.
1. Re:Not as black and white as people think by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I know. It's not fair to blame robbers -- locks are too easy to fix.
2. Re:Not as black and white as people think by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:13 · Score: 0
  
  ...except, SPAM exists because SMTP is broken, and we can't fix SMTP because of the network effect, and SMTP is not really awful enough to fix because ...wait for it ...Spamhaus. So, it is not entirely clear to me that this guy who fights for a free and open Internet is really the bad guy. Wouldn't it be better if we actually FIXED THE PROBLEM instead of suppressing anonymity to compensate?
  It would be better to fix SMTP but such a fix is difficult to do without losing anonymity. Whatever the fix is it'd be preferable to having some crazy-browed manchild on an e-Jihad.
3. Re:Not as black and white as people think by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone hates SPAM, so obviously Spamhaus is good and Cyberbunker is evil... ...except, SPAM exists because SMTP is broken, and we can't fix SMTP because of the network effect, and SMTP is not really awful enough to fix because ...wait for it ...Spamhaus. So, it is not entirely clear to me that this guy who fights for a free and open Internet is really the bad guy. Wouldn't it be better if we actually FIXED THE PROBLEM instead of suppressing anonymity to compensate?
  No pancake is so thin that it has only one side.
  And Charles Manson was an activist, too.
  Deliberately misuing a tool for illegal activity just because it CAN be miused doesn't exonerate ANYONE.
  Good God, you fucking moron.
4. Re:Not as black and white as people think by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  Have you ever watched a professional thief (or run of the mill locksmith) pick a deadbolt lock? It's so quick it might as well not matter. Yea we should stop using locks too.
5. Re:Not as black and white as people think by betterunixthanunix · 2013-03-30 00:48 · Score: 2
  
  It sounds like you are suggesting...spam filters, hashcash, and greylisting. Oh, wait, we do that already.
  
  The reason SMTP endures despite numerous attempts to replace it is that it does one thing and it does it well. Spam exists because SMTP is so good at delivering messages, and because it does so cheaply. I will not be parting with email any time soon.
  
  Much as I dislike Spamhaus, it is hard to side with someone whose grievances include "Jew lies."
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
6. Re:Not as black and white as people think by 1s44c · 2013-03-30 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  What technical fix do you suggest?
  I run mail servers. I'll happily change them if I never have to see spam again. The problem is that everyone has to change theirs too which might just be possible given that the entire world hates spam.
7. Re:Not as black and white as people think by Sponge+Bath · 2013-03-30 02:29 · Score: 2
  
  No pancake is so thin that it has only one side.
  You haven't tried my Mobius pancake recipe.
8. Re:Not as black and white as people think by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  What technical fix do you suggest?
  I run mail servers. I'll happily change them if I never have to see spam again. The problem is that everyone has to change theirs too which might just be possible given that the entire world hates spam.
  This will probably get the checklist, but mail servers could theoretically be programmed to refuse mail whose sender is not authoritative for the source domain. One way is to tap into the domain system and/or require a valid MX. The source is support@paypal but the originating IP is in Czechoslovakia, is not in a Paypal IP range, and is not a paypal.com MX? Reject it.
  Since origins can be spoofed we could allow servers to query a previous server with SMTP ID, size, and checksum, did you actually send this letter? Then add a trust metric for hosts to whitelist each other to cut down on this traffic so that these queries are generated for only a fraction of messages received by a particular server that claims it already verified the message.
9. Re:Not as black and white as people think by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  "could theoretically be programmed.."
  Nothing theoretical about it:
  **Unmatched Entries**
  --- 334 UGFzc3dvcmQ6: 1 Time(s)
  --- 334 VXNlcm5hbWU6: 1 Time(s)
  --- 550 5.7.1 Fix reverse DNS for 178.89.64.166,or use your ISP server: 1 Time(s)
  --- 550 5.7.1 Fix reverse DNS for 178.89.64.166,or use your ISP server (hold): 1 Time(s)
  --- 550 5.7.1 Fix reverse DNS for 118.130.252.210,or use your ISP server (hold): 1 Time(s)
10. Re:Not as black and white as people think by kwark · 2013-03-30 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  "...except, SPAM exists because SMTP is broken"
  SPAM exists because it works, people are clicking/buying stuff advertised through SPAM.
  There is nothing wrong with email if you consider it the equivalent to mail. Anybody can stuff your mailbox with stuff you think is undesirable, only difference is stuffing your emailbox costs less.
11. Re:Not as black and white as people think by Vainglorious+Coward · 2013-03-30 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Spam exists because SMTP is so good at delivering messages, and because it does so cheaply
  I would add to those two, and for the same reason, something equally important : you don't need anybody's permission to use it
  
  --
  My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
12. Re:Not as black and white as people think by kwark · 2013-03-30 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is there is no connection between sending and receiving MTAs. But what your idea has been implemented lots of time:
  -SPF
  -DKIM
  -DMARC
  -you could use BATV as sender verification
  They all fail in someway, and spammers are always the first to implement this in order to avoid spam scores.
13. Re:Not as black and white as people think by raxx7 · 2013-03-30 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  What you suggest is being done, see Sender Policy Framework and DKIM.
  And it does help a lot.
  However, it's not a solution to end all spam.
  - Many domains don't yet publish SPF/DKIM, so they can still be spoofed.
  - Spammers often use hijacked legitimate e-mail accounts.
  - Spammers sometimes spam from a domain which they do control.
14. Re:Not as black and white as people think by packrat0x · 2013-03-30 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever watched a professional thief (or run of the mill locksmith) pick a deadbolt lock? It's so quick it might as well not matter. Yea we should stop using locks too.
  Most locks are for privacy, not security. If you want security, use steel reinforced concrete and armed guards.
  
  --
  227-3517
From article: by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:56 · Score: 0

CyberBunker still lists its address as the bunker. But Joost Verboom, a Dutch businessman, says the address is occupied by his own company, BunkerInfra Datacenters, which is building a subterranean Web hosting center at the site. Mr. Verboom said CyberBunker and Mr. Kamphuis left the site a decade ago. It is not clear where the servers of CyberBunker and CB3ROB are now.
For decade cyberbunker is not in a bunker.
1. Re:From article: by 1s44c · 2013-03-30 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  For decade cyberbunker is not in a bunker.
  It's pretty good protection actually. This guy tells everyone the servers are in a bunker and it takes a huge amount of effort before anyone finds out they are not.
  Meanwhile he is charging his spammer friends bunker prices for dedicated servers with a bit of network redirection on them.
Dirty Capitalist by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:02 · Score: 0

We need to pan him as a dirty capitalist first (which he is) so the hero worship doesn't happen.
snoregasm by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:53 · Score: 0

>slow some web traffic to a crawl
didn't notice shit. next.
1. Re:snoregasm by 1s44c · 2013-03-30 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  >slow some web traffic to a crawl
  didn't notice shit. next.
  I don't think many people noticed shit. This may have been a massive attack but the effect was little to none.
What about the idea by techsoldaten · 2013-03-30 03:54 · Score: 0

What about the idea that Spamhaus, by being a blacklist, is denying service to all sorts of websites itself? Why is a DDOS attack that much different from what they do every day?
I mean, sure, they block a lot of spam, but what about all the times someone's domain gets blacklisted and it's not spam? And yeah, I realize domain admins opt in to use their blacklists.
It still does not change the fact it's a denial of service, coming from a self-appointed body that is in no better position to judge what is and is not spam than anyone else.
A real common tactic with political campaigns is to sign up for the opponents mailing list on an AOL account, wait for them to send you an email, then complain you are receiving spam. AOL turns around and gets that domain blacklisted. Then it takes time and resources to resolve the issue.
I just don't see much of a difference.
1. Re:What about the idea by Phroggy · 2013-03-30 04:30 · Score: 2
  
  What about the idea that Spamhaus, by being a blacklist, is denying service to all sorts of websites itself? Why is a DDOS attack that much different from what they do every day?
  I mean, sure, they block a lot of spam, but what about all the times someone's domain gets blacklisted and it's not spam? And yeah, I realize domain admins opt in to use their blacklists.
  I don't think you really understand what you're talking about. First of all, Spamhaus isn't denying service to web sites; they're listing IP addresses of known spam sources. Mail administrators use the list to block email - not web sites - from those IPs. Spamhaus is just one of many such services, but Spamhaus happens to be the best. Why is that? Exactly because they keep the false positives to a minimum. What you're talking about theoretically COULD happen, and certainly does happen with other blacklists, but the reason we mail admins use the Spamhaus SBL-XBL lists instead of the other blacklists is because we DON'T see legitimate servers getting blocked. Believe me, if we were blocking legitimate mail, our users would complain. It's not happening.
  
  It still does not change the fact it's a denial of service, coming from a self-appointed body that is in no better position to judge what is and is not spam than anyone else.
  They are in a better position. I don't know how they do it, I don't know how they got into that position, but they've managed to pull it off.
  
  A real common tactic with political campaigns is to sign up for the opponents mailing list on an AOL account, wait for them to send you an email, then complain you are receiving spam. AOL turns around and gets that domain blacklisted. Then it takes time and resources to resolve the issue.
  I just don't see much of a difference.
  The difference is that while this happens all the time with AOL's internal blacklist, Spamhaus doesn't work this way.
  
  --
  $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
  $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
2. Re:What about the idea by raxx7 · 2013-03-30 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Spamhaus are not self appointed.
  We, the system administrators, choose to use or not Spamhaus' black list (or any black list) in our systems to reject potential spammers.
  And we, the system administrators, are responsible for consequences of choosing to use a black list in our systems, including the possibility of rejecting legitimate messages and users and all that stems from it, from complains from your users to your boss yelling at you because the e-mail system rejected that important e-mail he was expecting.
  Many of us choose to use Spamhaus' black list because they do a good job at a) identifying spammers b) keeping legitimate users out of their black list. They help us keep our jobs.
  And if you care, Spamhaus are in a better position to identify what is spam and what is not than most.
  They have spent the last 15 years building up the means and experience to identify spammers, without falling victim of such simple tactics as complaining that you're being spammed by a mailing list you've subscribed.
3. Re:What about the idea by cheros · 2013-03-30 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Believe me, if we were blocking legitimate mail, our users would complain. It's not happening.
  How would they know they're not receiving email? I'm all for what Spamhaus does and have used their lists on many mail servers, but I have also been on the receiving end when they had it wrong.
  I was abroad, and the ISP I was using was blocked. Spamhaus basically tells you "talk to the ISP", but if you're dealing with a large ISP the theory that they will pay any attention to you doesn't always work. It wasn't difficult to solve (just grabbed a Yahoo account), but Spamhaus *can* get in your way, especially if you hang off a shared IP address.
  
  --
  Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
4. Re:What about the idea by Todd+Knarr · 2013-03-30 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  Simple: Spamhaus blocks not a single thing. Anywhere. Ever.
  I block things by configuring my servers to check Spamhaus' list and use it to control what I accept and what I reject. If I choose not to use Spamhaus' list, Spamhaus can't and doesn't do a single blessed thing to prevent e-mail from a domain they list from being accepted by my server.
  By saying you don't want Spamhaus to be able to work, you're saying you want to deny me any right to control my own servers.
  And yes, Spamhaus does expand it's blocking beyond just the source of the e-mails. That's why they're effective. They only expand blocking when the service provider for the source of the spam declines to take any action. That's because service providers of that sort generally only react when their customers complain, and the recipients of spam aren't their customers. So if they won't act, Spamhaus makes the problem the provider's customer's problem. Now the provider has to decide whether the spammer's worth more than the rest of their customers. Call it the free market in action. And as for signing up for a mailing list and then reporting it as spam, it generally won't work. The most popular block list Spamhaus runs detects spam via the use of spamtrap addresses, not random user submissions. If your ISP is trusted by Spamhaus, it's unlikely they'll report a source of spam just on the say-so of one or two random users without doing any investigation. Over the years I've found that Spamhaus is at least 99.9% reliable, and the handful of "false" positives have been otherwise-legitimate e-mail sourced through a third-party service known to also serve spammers. And my comments to the senders tend to run along the lines of "If you don't understand why using a service that caters to spammers is your problem, it's not worth my time to educate you. And if that means I won't be able to do business with you, then I guess it's your competitor's lucky day, isn't it?".
5. Re:What about the idea by theNAM666 · 2013-03-30 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's not an *attack*.
  That is all.
6. Re:What about the idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 22:14 · Score: 0
  
  Then you should have switched ISP. By paying an ISP that didn't deal with spam, you were part of the problem, so your inconvenience leaves me cold.
7. Re:What about the idea by Phroggy · 2013-03-31 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  Then you should have switched ISP. By paying an ISP that didn't deal with spam, you were part of the problem, so your inconvenience leaves me cold.
  No no, It's a fair point. Sometimes switching ISPs isn't that simple, and the user has no way to know an ISP's reputation as a spam source before signing up with them.
  But (to the GP) do you really mean ISP or email hosting provider? If you're relaying through your hosting provider but the mail is being rejected because your ISP is blacklisted, then somebody is doing something wrong (I do not condone using Spamhaus in this way). If you meant to say your email hosting provider is blacklisted, well, that's a problem.
  
  --
  $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
  $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
8. Re:What about the idea by cheros · 2013-03-31 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  The ISP was also providing email, but yes, the technically correct expression should have been "email provider".
  There is a degree of irony in this. Many years ago, I was behind the cleanup of a VERY large email provider in Hong Kong who had so many spam problems in their client base that we had to start with a network containment process before we started to tackle the clients, so it's not that I'm unfamiliar with the problem or unsympathetic to Spamhaus - I just observe that from a neutral perspective, Spamhaus is not perfect.
  Realistically, they can't be, because the sheer volume of spam they deal with makes anything but automation impossible and it is thus important that you have measures in place to detect being blacklisted. It may not be your fault, but you will suffer the effects.
  
  --
  Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
Well, he seems like a nice... wait. what? by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-03-30 03:59 · Score: 2

Mr. Kamphuis’s current nemesis is Spamhaus, a group based in Geneva that fights Internet spam by publishing blacklists of alleged offenders. Clients of Spamhaus use the information to block annoying e-mails offering discount Viagra or financial windfalls. But Mr. Kamphuis and other critics call Spamhaus a censor that judges what is or isn’t spam. Spamhaus acted, he wrote, “without any court verdict, just by blackmail of suppliers and Jew lies.”
1. Re:Well, he seems like a nice... wait. what? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  Ick.
2. Re:Well, he seems like a nice... wait. what? by strikethree · 2013-04-01 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  Clients of Spamhaus use the information to block annoying e-mails offering discount Viagra or financial windfalls. But Mr. Kamphuis and other critics call Spamhaus a censor that judges what is or isn’t spam.
  Unsolicited email is spam. It is not the content that makes it spam, it is the fact that it is unsolicited. Spammers never seem to address the unsolicited part of the argument.
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
He is full of it. by sgt+scrub · 2013-03-30 13:42 · Score: 1

He is not fighting for a free and open internet. CyberBunker says it accepts business from any site as long as it does not deal in “child porn nor anything related to terrorism.” This tells you immediately he is NOT fighting for a free and open Internet. He is fighting for the right to spam because he deems spam acceptable. I'm in favor of a free and open Internet. Completely free, spam, porn, games, copyrighted content, etc... I also believe in being allowed to use RBL's to filter out spamers like Kamphuis. I don't give a rats ass what people are into. Regulating avenues of communication will never have a positive affect on society He needs to stop pretending to be our friend. He isn't and deserves to get bitch slapped for it.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Classic 'Big Lie Strategy' by Martin+S. · 2013-03-30 23:15 · Score: 1

Not an idiot just applying the classic Big Lie Strategy, whilst most experts are still blustering at the absurdity of the lie; he's moving on to announce his next big lie.
Re:when the swedish girls came here in my youth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-31 02:10 · Score: 0

"Ya! Ya" in Swedish means "Help! I'm being raped!"
This is what caught Assange out.
Dikwad elitest hackers slowing entire internet by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-04 12:08 · Score: 0

One or more of you asshole hacker pukes that see yourselves as above all laws deserve painful and fiery death , including your spokesperson cowardSven Olaf Kamphuis. Everytime one of you lazy no good hackers steal money from an account of a hardworking person or business it confirms your worthless status deserving of death.