Anonymous Member Sentenced For Joining DDoS Attack For One Minute

jfruh writes "One of the most potent aspects of Anonymous is, well, its anonymity — but that isn't absolute. Eric Rosol was caught by federal authorities participating in a DDoS attack on a company owned by Koch Industry; for knocking a website offline for 15 minutes, Rosol got two years of probation and had to pay $183,000 in restitution (the amount Koch paid to a security consultant to protect its website ater the attack)." The worst part? From the article: "Eric J. Rosol, 38, is said to have admitted that on Feb. 28, 2011, he took part in a denial of service attack for about a minute on a Web page of Koch Industries..."

Comments

And they wonder why...

[TerminaMorte]

no one trusts the "justice" system anymore. One minute of using an automated tool is apparently a worse offense than crashing the economy.

Re:And they wonder why...

[IanGrant604]

Where's the "Like" button? There's just something egregiously wrong when you can be fined $183,000 and get two years probation for something like participating in a short-lived denial of service attack. That's a wildly disproportionate punishment!

Re:And they wonder why...

[FriendlyLurker]

The tiered justice system is working exactly as intended. Most of us are just on the wrong tier...

Re:And they wonder why...

[GameMaster]

$100 Billion may sound like a lot to you but that doesn't mean it's meaningful in regards to the actual damages done. More often than not when massive horrible things are done by Corporations (the crash of the financial/real estate markets, the Gulf oil spill, etc.) large corps get hit with penalties that look massive to an individual but actually only represent a small part of the true cost of restitution and only represent a day or two of operating profits at most for the company.

What happened in the story is so astonishingly unjustly inverted from that scenario because, in contrast, this guy was hit with the entire cost of the damages (even though he was only a tiny contributor to the actual crime, and that penalty probably represents many years worth of profits for him (minus the basic costs of living and taxes). It would be like fining JP Morgan all the Trillions of dollars that were estimated to have been lost throughout the economy because the courts didn't feel that they were likely to be able to clearly identify any of the other big players in the crime. Then, for good measure, make it so that the costs of litigating appeals of that verdict would be so expensive that it was guaranteed to drive the company into complete bankrupts (since even if this guy has a decent job and was able to afford a non-state appointed attorney for this trial it's unlikely he'll be able to hire a highly competent set of lawyers throughout the entire appeals process in the same way major companies to in order to successfully drive down the original, already too small, fines they are hit with).

Re:And they wonder why...

[krygny]

Why is someone who uses legal tax exemptions the one to blame? How about the congresspukes who add 4,000 pages of exemptions, credits and penalties to the tax code every year?

Taxes are not merely intended to take in revenue. You don't need 80,000 pages to do that. The principal purpose of the tax code is to control, or at least influence "behavior". And we all know what the IRS is for.

Re:And they wonder why...

[AIphaWolf_HK]

That's not justice at all, like the other one said. If police are too incompetent, or it is unfeasible to catch most people who commit a certain crime, they can't (or rather, shouldn't) punish those they do catch much more severely simply because they can't catch other people who commit said crime. Justice > security.

Re:And they wonder why...

[SecurityTheatre]

Oh, you're falling into the Austrian Economics trap of thinking of everything as a rational system.

People aren't rational. People who are violating the law especially aren't rational.

There is ample statistics that show increases in penalties do not have a linear impact on crime on any macro scale and in many cases, increases in punishment result in no net increase in compliance.

They do, however, from a utilitarian view, impact the overall good generated by the justice system.

Therefore increasing penalties shows a diminishing return (and a rather rapid one, in my view).

I view a 1 minute DoS attack as roughly akin to orchestrating one minute of blocking the entrance to a store (or maybe multiple stores). Such an act, while punishable by a trespassing fine, probably on the order of $100-$500, the "online" equivalent of $183,000 and two years probation does not match the act, especially when he was one of only several thousand people doing the same thing.

There are a few countries in the 1960s and 1970s that adopted the policy that there is no social justification for "making an example" of someone, and that the purpose of the justice system is rehabilitation and fair application of rules, rather than vindictive retribution, catharsis for victims, or the attempt to squash crime through draconian punishments.

Those countries (Norway, Denmark, Korea, New Zealand) stand in contrast to those countries who adopted a policy of "tough on crime" during the same period (the US, Britain, France). Looking back, the crime rates in these countries diverged, and today we find those countries with liberal justice systems having seen their crime rate drop much faster than those with draconian justice policy.

Sure, this is anecdote, but I don't buy vengance or harsh deterrence as justified reasons for rolling out the stocks on the few people who are caught at a relatively rare crime.

Re:And they wonder why...

[someSnarkyBastard]

...create civil disobedience and not get caught.

Then you are missing the point of civil disobedience. You are supposed to get caught, especially in places like the US where LEOs like to have a bit of theatricality in perp-walking someone out to the squad car. You want all the attention you can get, that's the point, you are calling attention to something you believe to be wrong.

Re:And they wonder why...

[CohibaVancouver]

That's the "Insightful" or "Interesting" option, which you don't have but I do. Oops!

Not to be confused with the [I Disagree] option, which is labelled "Troll" and/or "Flamebait."

Importance

[fluffythedestroyer]

1 minute or 15, you were there, your guilty. Plain and simple. so for me thats not the worst part. It seems to be a fair part if you ask me

Re:Importance

[Anonymous Coward]

Charging robbers for the cost of replacing doors is bogus, because the home owner should have installed steel vault doors in the first place to prevent themselves from being open to attack.

Re:Importance

[halltk1983]

Most robbers don't pay to fix the homeowners homes. Nor do they pay for the homeowners to install security systems, or hire a security guard to patrol the premises.

Re:Importance

[jedidiah]

Even under that model an absurdly high number is still an absurdly high number. He can never repay it. Thus it will never be repaid. The "punitive benefit" of that number is entirely bogus.

Justice is never served by an unreasonably high number.

It's far more likely to increase disrespect for the law.

Re:Importance

[ganjadude]

Some could argue that a DDoS is nothing more than "freedom of assembly" A modern day sit in if you will

Re:Importance

[MikeBabcock]

A DDoS should be punished with community service; its no different from protesting a store you dislike and making it hard for customers to get in.

No, the worst part was joining in the attack

[SuperKendall]

Knowingly trying to bring down web sites is a crime. Should we also not arrest people if they only throw one brick through a store window but do not take anything? Should we also not arrest people who kick someone only once when lying on the ground?

A crime is a crime, and the act of committing a crime takes only the moment you decide you are going to commit it. The duration of the actual crime hardly matters when compared to intent.

Also, consider the fact that the minute is only the point they could prove what he did, if he was willing to aid in DDOS attacks who knows how many other people he helped attack in the past?

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack

[rich_hudds]

You don't get fined $183,000 for throwing a brick through a window though.

It's supposed to be a justice system, and that fine is clearly unjust.

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack

[harvestsun]

Yes, we should arrest people that throw a brick through a window. But we should fine them the price of the window, not the price of hiring an elite security team to protect the window from future brick attacks.

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack

[DarkOx]

Two things should happen when you toss a brick through a store window. First the owner or perhaps the state on the owners behalf should initiate a civil proceeding against you where minimally upon being found liable be compelled to pay the full replacement and installation costs of a new window. Additional you might reasonably be expected to compensate the owner for the temporary loss of use of his property while the windows is being repaired. You must compensate for the harm to the owners property.

Then a criminal charges should be brought against you because its not in societies interest to have people thinking they can go around and break windows. Given throwing bricks through plate glass in public places has a high probability of injuring others that penalty too should be not insignificant. When its all said and does committing a senseless destructive act of vandalism like that should set you back a few thousand dollars; in the interest of justice.

Now lets think about the DDOS attack. Its vandalism pretty similar; but unless you are DDOS a hospital, public utility, or some government sites and similar there is basically no probability of anyone getting hurt as a direct consequence. So if anything the harm is automatically much lower. Unlike the window your computer is still perfectly fine once the DDOS is over and done with. So we are really down to society wanting to discourage vandalism and the short term loss of the use of property. Seems to me the penalty might be tied to the revenue the site nominally generates during the period for the owners and a little wrist for society to remind you not to be a prick.

183K is way out of line for 60 of participation in a DDOS, even if your hitting a site like Amazon.

But when the situation is reversed....

[ikedasquid]

and the MPAA issues a successful DMCA takedown (automated) for something they do not own the rights to....nothing happens.

Re:Actual Violence

[Hatta]

Then you get to learn what ACTUAL violence is, either buy police officer or prison inmate.

His point is that this fellow is learning what ACTUAL violence is, by police officer and prison inmate, for doing nothing more than sending TCP packets.

Except that property damage is not protest.

Two things: A DDOS is not property damage. And are you claiming the Boston Tea Party was not a protest?

It is possible to protest without damaging anyone or anything

It's not possible to effectively protest anything in todays America. You can have your say all you want inside free speech zones, but you'll never be heard. What good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?

Re:You Got Caught, Case Closed

[GameboyRMH]

This is ridiculous. He didn't rape anyone. He didn't hurt anyone. He rapidly requested web pages for 1 minute, slightly contributing to a computer bogging down. In a less batshit-crazy, less rabidly corporatist world, this would carry a punishment on par with dropping a cigarette butt on the street.