Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous's Latest Target: Boston Children's Hospital

Posted by Soulskill on from the put-down-the-digital-pitchforks dept.

Brandon Butler writes: "Supporters of the faceless collective known as Anonymous have taken up the cause of a young girl, after the State of Massachusetts removed her from her parents earlier this year. However, the methods used to show support may have unintended consequences, which could impact patient care. On Thursday, the Boston Children's Hospital confirmed that they were subjected to multiple DDoS attacks over the Easter holiday. Said attacks, which have continued throughout the week, aim to take the hospital's website offline. Similar attacks, including website defacement, have also targeted the Wayside Youth and Family Support Network. Both organizations are at the heart of a sensitive topic, child welfare and the rights of a parent." Members of Anonymous are now calling for a halt to the attacks.

14 of 329 comments (clear)

  1. That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've worked in healthcare.
    The company I worked for had their services hosted for at a data center. That Data Center also hosted some Banks.
    Groups like anonymous think they are performing some social disobedience by DDoS the banks, Also DDoS the actual Data center. While it took a few minutes for the network to switch over there were a few hundred doctors who couldn't access their software, for that time.

    XKCD described these attacks like vandalizing a bill board. But it is more like vandalizing a bill board by shooting a gun at it, and not knowing who or what is behind it.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sounds like your post's subject should be reading "This is why hosted services are Bad MmmKaa."

      It's all good and well to blame the 'hackers' - and they should be - but next time a critter chews through a cable, lightning strikes, somebody trips over a wire, or something else rather more benign happens and those doctors would have had the same issue.

      On the up side, at least there was a switch-over.

    2. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes people trip and fall down stairs. Sometimes assholes push people down stairs. That doesn't mean "stairs are bad" nor does it make someone who pushes someone down the stairs any less of an asshole.

    3. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you are expecting every small company to afford a large network infrastructure.

      No. But I do expect companies that require their hosted services in order to function have backup plans should the service go down.

      If in this case of the original comment about several hundred doctors not being able to access their information when the banks were under attack...several hundred doctors isn't a small company. That's a large medical organization. Or if whoever was running the service was treating it like an overloaded shared server then they get what they pay for.

    4. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So like when a woman is drunk and she gets raped, it's her fault. Gotcha.

      You "Don't blame the victim!" people are completely mindless. Do you know what "false dichotomy" means? It is possible for multiple parties to be at fault. It is possible that the victim is an idiot for putting themselves in a situation that a reasonable person would know not to put themselves into. This doesn't really apply in a situation where you're going about your business and someone decides to rape you, but it does in a situation where you choose to use technology you know is insecure, something that puts other people *at risk* no matter how much you whine and cry about how evil other people are.

      And have you ever heard of "negligence," or anything remotely similar to it? Jesus. Get a fucking brain, and drop the "stop blaming the victim" bullshit; it's old and tired, and you have no idea how to use it.

    5. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So then you're agreeing if I leave my door unlocked at night and someone comes in and steals something, it's my fault because the asshat thought it was okay to steal?

      Shall we take that twisted logic to the next phase and say if you get shot it's partly your fault because you weren't wearing a bullet-resistant vest? After all, you knowingly wore something which wasn't secure (your shirt/jacket) so obviously it's partly your fault for getting shot.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    6. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So like when a woman is drunk and she gets raped, it's her fault. Gotcha.

      Your analogy isn't perfectly correct: It's more like 'If some woman walks into the bad part of town and gets drunk, then proceeds to wander through the streets wearing only a negligee and waving around a bag of condoms while screaming "somebody fuck me!", then she bears some of the liability.

      Before you react - allow me to clarify what GP did not: She gets none of the legal blame (and should never bear any), but reality dictates that you don't go wandering into a pit of starving bears wearing only a loincloth made of steaks.

      Similarly, setting up services in a shared datacenter means you should know up-front the risks of doing so (accidentally cut fiber, datacenter management fuckup, FBI ICE seizure, DDoS, carrier fuckups, etc), and if your services are critical, you damned sure need to plan/mitigate accordingly.

      Essentially what you're saying is asshats like Anonymous don't have to take personal responsibility for their actions because their victims were asking for it.

      No, GP did not. What he did say was that if you don't know the (pretty damned obvious) risks and mitigations of going into something, then you shouldn't be considered competent enough to do it, and therefore should not do it.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  2. which could impact patient care by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Attacks to a website could impact patient care? If there is any truth at all to this (which I really doubt) then people should be made aware of it immediately. Thanks Anonymous, I really want to know if I'm going to get patient care at a hospital where that care could be compromised just by a problem on their website.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  3. Of course he is by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Blame the victim is popular on Slashdot. If a person doesn't have perfect digital security, run all their services themselves, and stay on top of everything, why it is their own fault if they get hacked!

    Of course the people who think that then would get extremely angry if someone broke in to their house, despite their piss poor physical security (almost nobody has good security on their house). Basically it is just a mentality of "I can do what I want but you can't do anything to me."

    1. Re:Of course he is by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blame the victim is popular on Slashdot.

      You know what else is popular? Playing the "You're blaming the victim!" card, and doing it in a way that's utterly absurd. I know you can't fathom how it's possible that *multiple people* can be at fault for something, or that you could say that the victim should have taken reasonable measures to prevent the Bad Thing from happening (In situations where this is reasonable and possible, of course.) without saying that the attacker is blameless or deserves no punishment, but it is possible.

      Funnily enough, he even said: "It's all good and well to blame the 'hackers' - and they should be".

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  4. What about Justina? by BBF_BBF · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's been a year now since Justina was removed from her parents.

    It should be painfully obvious if her health issues were as a result of her parents' psychological pressure since she hasn't been under their influence for over a year. So why don't any of the "advocates" fighting for the parents actually show us how Justina's doing now?

    If Justina is FINE now, then it would be quite obvious that the Doctors at the Boston Children's Hospital were correct. If she's still suffering from the same symptoms, then the parents have a much stronger case.

  5. Because by PortHaven · · Score: 1, Insightful

    BCH is kidnapping and torturing children.

  6. Why girl was removed. by PortHaven · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Girl has a rare mitochondrial disease, her sibling has been diagnosed with it as well. She was receiving treatment at Tuft's. She was ill with a stomach bug, but has complications (ie: has a access point in her intestines for treatment access). When they contacted the primary physican they work with on their daughter's illness. He informed the family that the gastreoentologist they work with was now at BCH (not too far away). And that they might want to go there since he is already familiar with her and her case.

    PROBLEM:

    When they arrive, they don't get to see their regular specialist. Instead, a doctor with only a few years of experience decides that she doesn't have mitochondrial disease. Why? Because BCH doesn't really believe it exists (this has in fact led to the death of a 5 year old patient in BCH's care, when the sibling was later diagnosed with it as well and confirmed by three other tests. They released the child. The parents now receive care at Tufts. And their son has greatly improved under Tuft's care. Sadly, their daughter is dead because of BCH.)

    So BCH essentially says that ALL of these ailments are in fact in the daughter's head. They seize the daughter. File a claim against the parents for medical abuse. That's right, the abuse the parents are charged with is NOT refusing medical treatment for their daughter, but in seeking medical treatment for their daughter.

    Their daughter was locked away for 7 months in BCH's psych ward. Probably about the time the family's insurance quit paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for her to be there. Then she was released into Child Protective Services care. Since being in BCH/CPS' care, their daughter's health has deteriorated. And many are concerned the lack of treatment will eventually kill Justina.

    As for the case against the parents. BCH/CPS pretty much disallowed participation (even against the law) of doctors and personel who worked prior with Justina. In fact, they refuse to conduct tests that would prove them wrong. And here lies the crux of the problem.

    What BCH and CPS has done constitutes a several million dollar lawsuit. If they back down, they are sure to be sued and lose millions. So they've dug their heels in....

    It's pretty insane...but this is the same government that sends SWAT teams to arrest elderly handicapped folk who grow orchids and fail to file the proper paperwork.

  7. Re:faceless collective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's reichstaging, pure and simple. First, they'll call gun owners the bad guys, criminalize firearms and take away ownership. Then, they'll call hackers the bad guys, criminalize computers and take away access. Then, they'll call students the bad guys, criminalize colleges and take away the books. Ad infinitum.

    If you're one of the bad guys, then they're one of the good guys and don't have to be good to you -- jew.