Slashdot Mirror
eBay Founder Pleads For Leniency For the PayPal 14
DavidGilbert99 writes "The founder of eBay, the parent company of PayPal, Pierre Omidyar has called on U.S. prosecutors to have mercy on the 14 members of Anonymous who are appearing in court this week facing up to 15 years in jail and a $500,000 fine for their part in a DDoS attack against PayPal in 2010. Despite thousands of Anons taking part, and most of the damage being done by two major botnets, the 14 are set to bear all the responsibility if U.S. prosecutors have their way."
Make them pay, pal !!
Why?
I knew there was a reason I took it up the ass from Omidyar for VC cash. He is a gentle and kind lover.
Its odd how online activism is treated much differently than that which occurs in meatspace. Many protests occur in real life where access to buildings or simply roads are blocked yet the treatment of the two types protestors is very different.
Spray painting a wall costs people time and money, and you know what, we don't drop fines that ruin peoples' lives over it.
it's sort of like how union leaders used to get put in jail (or killed) for organizing strikes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
Right now what they did does seem illegal hooliganism, as does most civil disobedience. Sometimes society adapts to see things differently. For now this is still hooliganism. I think they need to show a compelling good coming out of this if they expect a different response. The question is, what good would that be?
And neither do we posters. Everybody submitting anonymously. Or wait, im a member too. I think. Help me, Moss?!
And the prosecutors are probably out to send a message to all the potential hangers-on, that what they're doing is going to result in serious consequences.
That way they have to think what will happen if they get caught, and it won't be a slap on the wrist.
Which doesn't mean I think that what Anonymous was doing in this wasn't based on a genuinely good idea, I'm just expressing the intentions of the Justice Department.
Those zero-tolerance policies of US schools sure have succeeded in producing zero-tolerant proto-American fascists, haven't they?
This makes perfect sense. If an angry mob smashes up some shops fronts, but police only catch 14 people you wouldn't charge them with the total damage of the entire mob, as well as the cost of upgrading security to protect against an angry mob in the future. You would charge each individual according to the damage they actually did. In this case a single person using LOIC doesn't really do any significant damage at all. You could charge them a 1/1000 of the cost of overtime for personal to deal with the attack, and the extra bandwidth they caused the company, but its madness to hold them responsible for the damage done by the entire swarm. In a cynical POV, this is also an excellent way for PayPall to remove themselves as a target when the PayPal14 are found guility.
But it won't work that way. It's never really worked that way. Making things more illegal doesn't really put more hindrance on what people do compared to just being illegal, else we'd have the whole crack thing wrapped up by now.
"Tough on crime" is a moronic stance that doesn't address why people actually engage in crimes. A hint: very few people breaking the law are thinking rationally about consequences when they do.
n/t
These few are fined for the actions of thousands of individuals.
This means that if the detectives did their job better and caught more individuals, each individuals' fines would be lower.
Why should these individuals be punished for a sloppy job done by others?
They should be punished, they should pay a fine and they should pay damages. But they shouldn't have to pay damage caused by others.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Removing spray paint from a wall doesn't cost $5.5 million unless its the Sistine Chapel. Ruining peoples' lives over that much damage is par for the course.
We need to stop this stupid 4chan-born vigilanitism of this millennial generation. Time to set an example.
Spray painting a wall costs people time and money, and you know what, we don't drop fines that ruin peoples' lives over it.
Good point. It's about time we changed that. The current penalties certainly haven't proved to be a deterrent.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Oe noes. Financial damage oh the woe. Nothing can be so bad as financial damage. We must nail their balls to a wall to serve an example to others.
Fuck them.
Apparently the chaiman of the coppany that owns the damaged one wants leniency. That is the person who represents those who suffered financial damage. Who the hell are you to call otherwise?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I read "The Perfect Store" about eBay and Pierre seems like a really cool guy. Too bad us eBay sellers ended up having to endure Meg Whitman.
"They broke the law, and they did it in such a way as to cause financial damage to the company they were targeting,"
Next up: 14 people arrested and facing charges that could see them jailed for a decade for sitting on the sidewalk in front of the door to a local business, blocking legitimate customers from access.
News on your local Telescreen at 11.
Unless 10 000 people spray paint a town one night. If you catch a few of them (14 ?) and you know they only took a spray can and shot a few seconds (they did almost nothing vs the botnets), would you charge them for cleaning up the whole town ?
And however extreme your new proposed penalties are, they also won't because "what happens when I get caught" isn't the top of a vandals thoughts when they vandalize.
I think you meant impose a fine. Dropping the fine would mean they didn't have to pay.
And if they get an unjust sentence, like Brown or Hammond did, then Paypal, and Ebay should probably expect a massive retaliation from Anonymous.
I'm just sayin.
Eh, I faced zero tolerance policies, and I clearly agree with you more than the GGP. That sounds more like a "damn kids!!!" argument than anything to me.
because if they all end up with 15 year sentences, people might start asking why we're such a sensitive target thats so dangerous to attack. it might draw more attention to our business practices and confidential information. our own employees might become sympathetic, nay, might start 'leaking' information on how we skirt banking regulations and use our market dominance to arbitrarily freeze funds or hold 30% of transactions for 90 days, or how we refuse to pay bug bounties and lock out entire countries without explanation.
so if we could just stop over-reacting to this silly hacktivism and just go about our business that would be swell.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The objective here isn't to punish anyone proportionally to the crimes they committed. The whole point of online activists having the book thrown at them is to deter future activists.
The corporations already feel like meatspace activists have too many rights, so it is imperative to set a precedent that online activism will be dealt with harshly.
If I choose to pay someone $5.5 million to put up a "no trespassing" sign and a chain link fence after getting hit by vandals, that doesn't mean the vandals cost me $5.5MM
There is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. Stealing money from peoples' paypal accounts is not the right way.
These people deserve to be made an example of.
Jesus Christ, can I make one post here with metaphorical language without someone coming along to say "don't you mean [literal version of the colloquialism I just used]?"
He's the Lap Dog of the State.
Then the 14 would only have to pay a small fine and admit no wrongdoing. Really, what they should have done was form their own bank if they wanted to steal money. I mean, look at Paypal, and they aren't even a bank!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
This wasn't spray painting a wall. It was more like barricading the doors. Painted walls don't stop you from doing business.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I have no problem with throwing the book at these folks should they be found guilty. I doubt that these IP addresses corresponded to computers that were the personal property of the defendants.
My problem is that the government seems to fail to apply justice equally: when corporations screw the consumers, why aren't they busting up rocks?
That is the person who represents those who suffered financial damage. Who the hell are you to call otherwise?
Justice is blind. It doesn't matter what the harmed think. It's a criminal prosecution.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
So we should ignore the fact that making punishments harsher is a terrible deterrent; in spite of how simple it sounds? The chance of getting caught is what is an actual deterrent.
So hitting a few people, very hard, for an action much larger than them, produces very little result. Whereas slapping a lot of people lightly on the wrist, would likely produce a much bigger result.
Course, paypal deserved it. I applaud everyone who took part.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Spray painting a wall costs people time and money, and you know what, we don't drop fines that ruin peoples' lives over it.
We have zero tolerance for making companies lose money... now when companies or banks make us lose money (or homes), it just shows the system works (the way they designed it).
To follow the analogy, how is this different from setting up a picket line out front of someone's front door to protest some of the things that said company is doing that you find morally objectionable?
Should the physical analog of this very same situation also be subject to a 5.5 million dollar fine?
Thirty four characters live here.
before I'll go to jail? What If I just show up on paypap.com some day and get dragged into something like this?
... a position which is frightfully naive. Of course making things more illegal is a deterrent. It used to be totally legal to drive with your kids in the back of your truck on the open freeway. It's now more illegal (at least in California) and you don't see (very many) people driving on the freeway with kids in the back of their truck.
All officially recognized crimes are punished with the intent of deterring future crime, and you live in a time and place which ranks as among the most peaceful and civilized periods in all of known history. To suggest that this concept does not work betrays a stunning lack of understanding and respect for all the work put in by the millions of people who worked to establish and maintain the system that provides such domestic peace and tranquility.
Did you actually think that spending 10 years in jail actually compensates the parents and loved ones of a murder victim? Sorry, if they're dead, no amount of punishment will ever bring them back, and until you've personally experienced the loss of a close loved one, you cannot really understand just how devastating such a loss can be.
However, even sociopaths can understand personal injury and suffering even if they lack the ability empathize in any way with their victims.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I don't agree with them, I don't like many many things about anonymous etc but punishing 14 comparatively minor parts of a DDoS attack as though they caused all the damage isn't moderate, responsible or effective. There is a difference between giving them a punishment that has a deterrent affect and this nonsense.
The issue, imo, is that an embarrassingly small number of people are being prosecuted for this (surely hundreds, or thousands, of the perpetrators existed in the US or countries that would cooperate. Instead of doing things properly and punishing a lot of people moderately, they are going to drop a bomb on 14 chumps and fully ruin their lives. Parts of the state are trying to avoid criticism about catching so few people by victimising the few they have.
It won't be an effective deterrent because so few people have been caught that the people involved will continue to think that the odds of being caught in future are tiny.
Alas, Slashdot literalism is here to stay.
It costs virtually nothing to put up a sign and fence and is pretty much standard protocol. If vandalism was so bad in your area that you had to take considerably more action like paying guards, changing site layout etc then vandalism has cost you that money. Society normally puts a premium on punishments/fines etc to account for three (or more) things 1/ the odds of getting caught and 2/ the disproportionate costs crime can cause and 3/ to act as a deterrent.
If I steal £10 off someone in the street but then get caught a £10 fine won't put me off doing it again because I'm never worse off for doing it. £10 also isn't the real impact of my crime. Stealing the money may mean that my victim couldn't afford the bus and so lost 2 hours wages, they could feel unsafe in public, it could discourage other people from travelling to that area.
My crime, and the crimes of others, in combination have caused this and it is right that punishments consider it.
Shit comparison. One can simply walk past or through a picket line and into the buisness and have your transaction. I have done it before...and would do it again.
Want to protest, hold a sign, get some light cardio marching in a circle chanting catchly slogans? Go ahead!
Want to get in my way for doing buisness? Then fuck you and the horse you rode in on as you are not going to waste my time and money with your "cause."
1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
You need to complete your analogy. The ones that "only took a spray can and shot a few seconds" were willfully joining into an expansive coordinated attack with the intent to amplify the damage. This wasn't a case of "wrong place at the wrong time", they knew they were joining a larger group. One of Niven's laws... "Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at an armed man."
They shouldn't have to pay for all the damage caused by others however I think the case can be made for considering the damage caused by the whole group when punishing individuals involved. On a basic level a DDoS goes from ineffective to partially effective to effective when more people take part and on another level their involvement helped build up the critical mass behind the attack.
It looks like Paypal is saying, "This won't decrease our business risk, it won't impact the actual source of the problem, and these people aren't responsible for or capable of the damage they did. On their own, they would annoy the network security guys; most of the network guys wouldn't notice them. This isn't relevant to us; except that if these kids get fucking crushed for this people we can't fight will be pissed at us and kick us more! We need to stop this to reduce our risk of suffering mob justice!"
Somewhere around there, some folks felt the system was unfair and brought up an argument. It turned into a business argument. That's basically how it works.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Because a picket line is a visible display. You motherfuckers move out of the way, you're blocking the customers; annoying them is fine. If picketers physically barre customers from entry to a place of business, they get pepper spray and handcuffs.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
There is an easier real world analogy than the one GP picked. If there's a city-wide riot and the police only are able to arrest a few people, do those few people have to pay for all of the damage done during the riot?
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Omidyar says that as someone "deeply committed to government transparency, press freedoms and free expression, these issues hit close to home."
Remember that it was the permanent restriction of Wikileaks account that triggered the Anonymous attack in the first place.
Lol.. no it does not. But it also does not mean you escaped without costs. Those costs can be reasonable if they just compare similar costs of remedies in similar situations. So lets say that most people only spend 2 million to achieve the same thing if under the same constraints like energeny service instead of contract scheduling and 24 hour monitoring until it is safe from the threat. You can reasonably be expected to be liable for that and possibly more if there was no options reasonably priced.
You are not going to find a lot of logic and reasoning in this that is sympathetic to the criminals. This is by design as a deterent. But it is really no different for anything else when damage or impending damage happens. Try getting an insurance claim provessed after a hurricane if you refused to spend the money to board the windows up. My neighbor had a tree limb fall through the roof of his house last spring. He spent morre getting someone out at 3am to tarp it to keep the rain out then it finally cost to fix it. Of course the homeownwers insurance paid for it because they require you to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damage.
To follow the analogy, how is this different from setting up a picket line out front of someone's front door to protest some of the things that said company is doing that you find morally objectionable?
The difference is that a picket line shouldn't be using physical force to stop customers from entering the store.
In some cases neither is true. Look at speeding tickets and DUIs as an example. People do both and the penalties for one can be your freedom.
Now that thousands of other anon's know that if you get caught, you get royally shafted, they might think twice...
If a thousand men bum-rush a guy, each sticking a pin into him, and the man dies the death of a thousand needles, and 986 of the pin attackers escape, do you charge the 14 that you caught with his murder -- or should they be let off the hook? [Now, of course I know that DDOSing a website isn't murder, but this is /. and I'm fresh out of car analogies.]
This is like the guy who stole a nickle yesterday. He's still a thief. Try these kids for the crime, and dole out the right amount of justice on each of them based on their records (or lack of records) appropriately. ...but understand their crime is still "murder," not just battery.
They were not physically blocking you from sending http requests to the sight, they were just sending them faster then you can. Its like if to protest McDonalds, protesters lined up and ordered waters. Its annoying and costs money, but if you spend 5.5 million dollars to add a line specifically for water, do the 5 out of 1000 protesters you caught deserve to pay for all of it?
McDonalds can order the picketers off the premises, and they have to wait outside and let customers pass. The act of sending an HTTP request is, on the other hand, actually blocking others from sending requests.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Too bad us eBay sellers ended up having to endure Meg Whitman.
You think *she* was bad?? Her successor, John Donahoe is MUCH MUCH worse.. I'd sold on eBay since around 1998, and Meg's tenure was positively refreshing compared to Donahoes.. Her mantra was "eBay is just a venue", and pretty much stuck to it.. With Donahoe, its ALL about the buyers now, they can do no wrong.. He seems to convieniently forget that it is the SELLERS who pay the ever-growing fees that keep eBay running. The sellers, who stick around, now have a not-so-silent partner in their business, butting in with endless new rules and requirements, where he has NO business.. He seems to be trying to rid eBay of all small sellers, such that unless you peddle millions of $$ of cheap Chinese crap each month, eBay doesn't want you.. From about 1998 to 2008, I sold probably 2-3K/mo, as a nice sideline business.. Since 2008, I no longer sell there, and if you read the eBay forums, you'll see I sure *aint* the only one...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
It's different because a picket line can be crossed. Picketing relies on convincing potential customers to choose not to patronize a particular business. A better analogy for a DDOS attack might be deliberately blocking the doors so customers can't get in--for which the business can (and often successfully does) sue for lost income.
This isn't to say that picketing doesn't sometimes get out of hand, or that the penalty currently on the table isn't way too high. To be honest, I always thought that these sorts of damages were handled in a civil lawsuit after the criminal proceedings. But I'm not an expert in law.
win the PR war?
So technically did those who held sit-ins at whites-only lunch counters...
If they stopped 5 customers goin in who were going to spend $1 million dollars each, then yes.
If they stop 1 million customers from getting to a site who were going to spend $5, then yes.
Either way they are scapegoats for the same "criminal act" committed by thousands of people. Where's justice in that?
How likely are you to get caught for speeding? I mean, most people drive over the speed limit. The average traffic speed here is 15 MPH over on the highway (outside of rush hour). I mean yes, you will get nabbed eventually when they need to make numbers, but they get so few at a time that the chanced of getting caught is so low, it garauntees targerts. They have no incentive to enforce it more widely (not the least of which since there would be no benefit)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
In my area, they've made it mandatory for building owners to clean the graffiti, or they get a fine. Unless of course it's on electrical/phone utility boxes, bus shelters, or other common targets. Graffiti seems to stick around on these things, and the local utility company never has to clean them. Small business owners end up being the ones getting fined.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
In point of fact, punishing a small number of individuals for the actions of a large group only encourages such group behavior in the future. After all, they know that most of the group will get away with the act, completely punishment-free, and the authorities will be happy to (metaphorically) beat the living crap out of just a handful of people in exchange.
Punishment only deters actions when receiving said punishment is a *likely* result of taking those actions. When *anyone* receiving said punishment is unlikely, and it is likely that *if* anyone is punished, it will be a small fraction of the large group of actors, then even an incredibly harsh punishment barely even registers as a possible deterrent.
I still think it is a stretch to characterize DDOS as computer hacking or whatever other legal term they are using that puts it on par with spreading malicious software and other things that involve defeating security measures and stealing data. Technically, these DDOS relies on the workings of the internet and if a company relies on the workings of the internet for its business, then angry DDOSers, are part of the cost of doing business on the internet. The government should not be involved in deciding what type of traffic is allowed or unallowed over these telecommunications networks.
Hi. Banker here. We really don't want our borrowers to lose their homes or money. That is our worst case scenario.
Also, I didn't have anything to do with designing the system.
Just sayin'.
Yup, and the favorite counter example of mine is lojack. Even a smalish increase in lojack use in an area (if I remember right, around 1%) was shown to correlate to a 20% drop in car thefts in that area.
Nobody wants to get punished, but many more people will take a small chance at a large punishment than will take a large chance at a small one. which makes sense. A small chance at a large punishment is a large chance at nothing but benefit.
I mean, if you erased the actual action and just look at the risk/reward as a bet, it makes a lot more sense. I mean, imagine a Keno game where prizes go up to 19 numbers, but if you guess a perfect 20, you get executed.
Is that a good bet? You know what.... if I was a gambler I would, its still a good bet: There is no documented case of a perfect keno round having ever happened. It is that unlikely. You could place and replace that bet every minute and still die of old age.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
fuck em....
No it isn't.
User can still send however many requests they like. It may stop your site from acknowledging or responding to requests in a timely or cost effective manner.
In the extreme example of felony murder you can be convicted of murder if you are part of a criminal conspiracy that ends in the death of the victim.
The general rule has always been that participants in a conspiracy are personally and collectively responsible any and all damages caused by the conspiracy.
It sucks to be the small fish who gets caught and fried ---
but why do you think your partners in crime recruited a minnow?
When do we start applying penalties like this to the NSA?
Criminal punishment is not shared. If 10 people are convicted of a crime, they don't each get 1/10th the sentence that a single individual would. Just because some perpetrators go unpunished, doesn't meant that the convicted are doing their time. Likewise, the money is a fine, not recompensation, so the value isn't determined by distributing restitution across all of the convicted.
On the other hand, you won't be on the hook for every petty theft that happened in the country that day. You'll make restitution and face penalties appropriate to stealing £10
Hi. Banker here. We really don't want our borrowers to lose their homes or money to someone else.
There, fixed it for you.
(Just sayin'.)
First, this is slashdot, so no, you can't. Second, "drop charges on him" isn't a colloquialism, it's just poor communication. "Dropping charges" means you pressed charges on someone, then decided not to prosecute, which is the exact opposite of what you meant to say. It's kind of like "I couldn't care less"; it's simply ignorance.
Now, if you can cite somewhere besides 4chan where "dropping charges" means charging someone...
Alternatively, dropping a charge on someone can mean explosives.
Jesus, man. You don't know the depths of your own ignorance. What are you doing here? I've seen a LOT of mangled communication like that from you. This is slashdot, A NERD SITE. Say something stupid, or say it stupidly, and you WILL be called out for it.
BTW, moderators, he's offtopic...
One of the best approaches to fighting vandalism, especially graffiti is to keep painting over it. We have a building in NYC. Years ago it was constantly defaced with graffiti and the overall paint on the building looked a bit shabby. We had it painted but within a week the graffiti was back and it built up over the next few months. We called the painter who gave us the number of a graffiti removal service. For a monthly fee they would add us to a route and drive by once a week. If they spotted graffiti they would pull over and paint over it using the same color as our building or pressure wash it off.
After a few months of constant painting it began to taper off. After a year it virtually stopped and we didn't need the service any more. Now we keep our own paint and maybe once or twice a year we have to cover up some scribble.
Constantly covering up the scribbles deters the vandals as it takes away the "power" they feel by marking a piece of property.
Dissent will not be tolerated!
I don't use Ebay anymore for the reasons you cited--I'm not interested in enriching Power Sellers, I'd like to reward small sellers with my business.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
It is COMBINED 15 years between all of them. So really, about a year each, which again, is the MAXIMUM they can receive.
It doesn't matter what the harmed think.
What you just described isn't justice being blind, it's justice being stupid. Justice being blind means you look at the facts and just the facts, and whichever side the scales tip more favorably in, that is the "winning" side. It doesn't mean everything is weighted equally (for example, one person's "eye-witness" testimony that the accused was at the scene of the crime being weighed the same as video proof* that the accused was thousands of miles away at the time of the crime).
If the "harmed" party doesn't wish to press charges, then the government can kindly back the fuck out.
*Yes, you could probably find ways to pick apart such defense. But I didn't feel like writing out a 10 page report closing off every single "but what if" that you could bring up regarding the video proof.
Yep, you're never going to stop criminals by having no empathy for them. When you understand why they do the things they do, you can take away that why.
Here's a clear example of someone demanding compliance with a specific way of thinking, and all else being "stupidity" and demanding moderation to comply with their own willfully ignorant perspective. You are the detestable groupthink that no one likes here.
a 60 day hold on funds for anything sold on ebay
but elon musk has a spaceship - which is all that matters in life - elon musk's spaceship
I am not particularly fond of the extent of the punishment, but I am certainly in favor of your idea about limiting protests to areas where they do not disturbing people that are not interested in hearing them.
Get the fuck out, slave. You are unworthy to live in a free country.
Throw the book at their collective heads.
your looking at this all wrong..... it CREATES jobs....... or some political bull crap.
Had thye simply killed the CEO of Paypal in cold blood like civilized men they could be out in only a few years, at worst. But instead they chose to send TCP packets to a public server, which is the second most terrible crime possible, second only to downloading copyrighted material without a license. TCP packets are famous for being used by terrorists and child molesters. I am glad something is finally being done about this.
Anarchist style group that seems to think that this is a victimless crime and keep getting more and more bold with their attacks?
That protest stuff is utter bullshait. Claiming participating in a DDOS is form of protest is like saying you're helping people lose weight by punching them when they reach for food.
In a legal system that were even remotely sane, online vandalism would be at most a civil offense, and the case would go poof the instant the damaged party declined to sue or press charges.
Perhaps I'm over generalizing. Perhaps some bankers share your view. However, the number of lost homes and the high profits of banks seems to indicate that yours is not the prevailing view in the industry.
People very close to me lost their home because banks were completely unwilling to renegotiate their terms to allow them to keep their home. The U.S. Government helped save the ass of banks, and they returned the favor by throwing people out on theirs.