Slashdot Mirror
FBI Monitoring Hacking Targets For Retaliation
An anonymous reader writes: As high profile security breaches continue to grab headlines, little is being done visibly by the government to prevent future attacks. This is prompting some victims (and potential victims) to find creative ways to stop the hackers. The FBI is now concerned that U.S. companies and institutions are themselves breaking laws by retaliating with cyberattacks of their own. "In February 2013, U.S officials met with bank executives in New York. There, a JPMorgan official proposed that the banks hit back from offshore locations, disabling the servers from which the attacks were being launched ... Federal investigators later discovered that a third party had taken some of the servers involved in the attack offline, according to the people familiar with the situation. Based on that finding, the FBI began investigating whether any U.S. companies violated anti-hacking laws in connection with the strike on those servers, according to people familiar with the probe."
Catch the people defending themselves.
Normally I would be against this, but nowadays hackers are mostly just extortionists. Not to mention the damage they've done to the work done by real hackers trying to protect freedom. Really, I think this generation of hackers just need to be purged so the scene can get back to normal.
Probably not. Any hacker with two brain cells to rub together would quietly infiltrate systems in company A, from there infiltrate Company B, C & D, rinse/repeat until sufficient layers of abstraction sit between them & their target, and then use them to attack the real target. If the response of victim X is to nuke the IPs from which the attack came, they are a) hitting the wrong entity, b) potentially destroying evidence left by the real perps, and c) probably initiating a re-retaliation from the victim of their attack.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
"the right to bear arms was pretty clearly a protection of the people's ability to effectively rebel against a lawful but non-representative government."
Not really, it was said in reference to a well-regulated militia. The Point was that the founders knew very well the problems a small determined group could cause.
Anyhow, the 2 year old in Idaho who managed to shoot his mother with her own weapon had a right bear arms too, the Constitution made no mention of age.