Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Hacker Gets Lost At Sea, Rescued, Then Arrested (softpedia.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Martin Gottesfeld, 31, from Somerville, Massachusetts, was arrested by FBI agents after being rescued at sea in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the FBI, Mr. Gottsfeld was under investigation after launching a series of cyber-attacks against Boston Children's Hospital in 2014, as part of the Anonymous hacker collective. Gottesfeld and his wife were found in a sailboat, near the coast of Cuba, with lots of luggage and 3 laptops. A Disney Cruise ship took them to the Bahamas, where FBI agents took him into custody.
as time went on Anonymous increasingly became a tool of western 'liberal' establishment pushing its ideology against outsiders.
for example, it, becoming prosecutor, judge, and executioner, tried to take down twitter accounts (branded as isis supporters) of those protesting and resisting( by definition through a non violent platform of tweets) western crimes, torture camps, invasions, etc.. it tried to do the same for outsider candidate trump. in contrast Anonymous has not done anything against establishment criminals like clintons, or members of western military drone killing children in countries it invaded , or those running the torture camps illegally.
" the Bahamas, where FBI agents took him into custody". There - and I thought that it was an independent country. Will they be getting Medicare soon?
Boston Children's Hospital was likely in the wrong for what they did. Here's some background: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/12/07/difficult-return-hospital-for-justina-pelletier/u4JXzmt5YsmWhYk95za2aK/story.html. Justina Pelletier had been diagnosed with a mitochondrial disorder, but doctors at BCH decided the ailments were mental. They claimed that Pelletier's parents were harming her by seeking medical treatments that the BCH doctors deemed unnecessary with their diagnosis. Pelletier was declared a ward of the state and spent over a year in a psychiatric health unit. Another article worth reading is http://www.csoonline.com/article/2147347/hacktivism/activisms-slippery-slope-anonymous-targets-childrens-hospital.html, which says that there was a note allegedly written by Pelletier saying that caregivers in the psychiatric health unit were abusing her.
Diagnosing some ailments is difficult, and doctors don't always agree. I suspect Pelletier's parents believed they were doing the right thing. Declaring her a ward of the state was a pretty awful thing to do. If the caregivers didn't treat her well, that's even worse. Campaigns on social media and going to the traditional media to protest this is absolutely warranted. Threatening to harm doctors crosses the line. Denial of service attacks against a hospital might affect systems used to provide medical care, endangering patients. That's truly wrong because it puts innocent people at risk of being collateral damage.
to Cuba (except for the piss-poor Internet), but why the hell was a Disney ship near Cuba?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
According to a couple of reports he was arrested in Miami.
"Had it been targeted against the incompetent doctor(s) i would have no problem with this."
So a stressed out doctor who may have worked 80 hours that week makes one mistake and you think its ok to cyber attack him systems which may compromise patients records or even their treatment??
Why the fuck do people like you think you're judge and jury??!
But attacking a childrens hospital because of one particular case that Mr Self Appointed Judge and Jury clearly had issues with is really setting a new low bar. I honestly hope they put him in a cell with Big Bubba and throw away the key. And at 31 years old the guy needs to grow the fuck up fast. This is the sort of shit that teenagers pull, not a supposed adult.
No, they were not "likely in the wrong for what they did". Do you think it's just a coincidence that she was "in desperate need of hospitalization" when they separated her from her parents, then during the time away from them she became healthy enough to be going out and playing, going from interview to interview, going on trips, etc... then a couple months later after living with her parents ended up back in the hospital on an IV drip?
It amazes me how everyone took the parents statements at face value in this case. According to the hospital, they didn't just rush off and try to get her declared a ward of the state - after the parents refused to listen, they tried to convene a meeting with all of her past caretakers, other people who knew her, etc, but the parents derailed their efforts. They basically had no choice but to either let the parents continue to do what they were convinced was medical child abuse, or step in. And the judge didn't just defer to the hospital's diagnosis in his ruling to put her in protective custody, but also blasted the parents for their erratic behavior and for trying to derail all attempts at compromise. There were many proposals laid out that would have left them with custody of her, but "Rather, the parents, either directly or indirectly, continue to engage in very concerning conduct that does not give this court any confidence they will comply with conditions of custody.'
The case was accused of basically being Munchhausen Syndrome by proxy - that is, the caretaker lies to or otherwise misleads the child and doctors about their child's condition, and often seeks treatment that actually cause the child to develop real symptoms which they then play into their dealings with the child and with doctors. They often engage extensively in doctor shopping, staying only with a doctor so long as he agrees to continue doing whatever treatments they feel are necessary for the child. Kids are very suggestible to begin with, even without parents doing that sort of thing. In the case of Justina, when they brought in a psychologist, the psychologist immediately noticed that the severity of Justina's symptoms was highly dependent on whether her mother was around, and the mother was constantly playing up everything.
It's easy to get concerned about the seriousness of taking a child out of their parents' custody - it's a massive blow to both the parents and the child. But let's also not forget the seriousness of what medical child abuse is all about. In the case of Justina, her parents had taken her for all kinds of surgeries and invasive procedures, some risky and experimental, such as installing a flush port to her digestive tract in her abdomen. She was said to have "mito", but her metabolic workup showed perfectly normal results. She had never had a muscle biopsy. While she was at the hospital her parents were trying to have a feeding tube installed. She was taking a wide range of medications, some with harmful side effects. If you were concerned that this was a case of MSP and were looking at what these parents had done and what they were trying to do, wouldn't you be concerned?
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a mental illness and a form of child abuse. Her parents had a port permanently installed in the child's intestines when there was no medical reason to do so, and were now petitioning the doctors at BCH for even more invasive treatments.
Doctors at BCH examined the child, remember, and found no medical evidence to explain her symptoms. Removing the child from her parents is not something they undertook lightly, but in this case was warranted - the child's symptoms were much improved after being removed from her abusive parents. That her parents then turned "social media" to garner sympathy should also raise a big red flag. I'm going to side with the medical experts on this one.
It's never that simple, when parents receive conflicting information from different doctors. And when someone alleges a parent is abusing a child, that be a very scary thing. It's particularly so when it involves removing custody from a parent who genuinely wants the best for the child. It's very possible the parents may not have cooperated out of fear. There are plenty of people who will say that medical child abuse is overcharged, that it's actually less frequent than the accusations that are made.
There have been other improper allegations of medical child abuse made by BCH and others, some of which is well documented at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/opinion/sunday/the-new-child-abuse-panic.html. Take the case of the Hilliards, described in the article. Their daughter died at age 5 from what experts concluded was a genetic disorder affecting mitochondrial function. When their three year old son began to show symptoms, the parents asked that he be tested. The hospital, also BCH in this case, alleged abuse, though the state disagreed. The parents took the child to Tufts to be treated. However, a BCH pediatrician called a different doctor at Tufts and again alleged abuse. The state intervened against the medical opinions of the pediatrician treating the child at Tufts. Under demands of the state, the treatments were scaled back, resulting in a six week hospital stay in which the child's condition worsened. The treatments were restored and the child recovered. In this case, the improper allegations of medical child abuse by BCH actually harmed the child involved. BCH has twice made the allegation of medical child abuse in similar circumstances, this one clearly being false.
I have no clue why you'd simply accept BCH's word on this. Their credibility is certainly in question based on the other incident. Furthermore, there's plenty of reason to believe that most allegations of medical child abuse are completely unfounded.
Justina spent over a year in psychiatric care at BCH. When that treatment ended, her symptoms hadn't improved. BCH may well have misdiagnosed Justina because their treatments weren't successful. Furthermore, it's unbelievable to me that you're willing to simply disregard the opinions of multiple other doctors both before and after the child abuse allegations who believe that Justina's symptoms are caused by physical health issues rather than mental health issues.
It's not that simple. This isn't a case of siding with the medical experts versus the parents. This was a case where the medical experts disagreed on the causes of the child's symptoms. The doctors at BCH claimed it was a mental health issue. The doctors at Tufts believed it was a physical health issue. The parents were stuck in the middle between doctors at two hospitals who disagreed. When the opted to follow the treatments proposed by doctors at Tufts, the doctors at BCH alleged medical child abuse. BCH made claims of medical child abuse in a similar case with a different child. In that case, removing the medical treatments actually harmed the child during the course of a six week hospital stay. If a parent agrees to remove necessary physical treatments from a child based on the diagnosis of a different doctor when the physical treatments were necessary, couldn't that be considered child abuse? The child is now being treated by doctors at a hospital at Yale who again believe the issues are physical in nature rather than mental. What you call siding with the medical professionals is actually siding with one group of doctors in the minority versus the diagnoses of doctors at two other hospitals. You're also siding with doctors who apparently made an improper allegation of medical child abuse in another similar case.
...make an example of him.
At some point we seem to have recognized how vitally important networks and computers have become to our system, but we still pretty much treat hacking as a minor (if not outright trivial) crime.
Then again, I'm for capital punishment because if you have 7+ billion of ANYTHING, they're demonstrably not precious.
-Styopa
Threatening to harm doctors does cross the line, but if you put yourself in their position you can see how they view the doctors as threatening to harm Justina. The whole "ward of the state" move is something that should carry some personal responsibility for the person "making the call" - I know it's a tough job and that most people in it do far more good than harm, but it's a job that absolutely demands compassion and sympathy for the people who are being impacted by the decisions - and often the people doing it just treat it like a mechanistic procedure execution, or worse still, a TSAesque power trip.
Munchhausen Syndrome by proxy is very real. My earlier reply shows how limited exposure to the facts of the case can give a particular point of view weight - sometimes too much weight. We have friends who brought their infant in to a hospital for treatment and, thanks to the hospital staff executing procedure like mechanized drones, lost custody of their infant for over a week while they were forced to engage lawyers and drop their entire life to get their child back. The hospital made the absolute wrong call from a humanitarian point of view, but since there was a procedure in place all they had to do was point to it and they're congratulated for "doing their job."
Since they are not going to be needing it anymore, can I have their boat?
What? I like to sail.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a mental illness and a form of child abuse
and it is a significant contributor to the infant mortality rate.
It's a tough nut to crack, how to respect good parent's rights while identifying the cases in which they really are abusing their child (or themselves in straight Munchausen syndrome without the proxy.)
I'd err on the side of "refuse to treat" rather than "remove the child from the home" - but that's also a quick way for the child to end up dead. It's kind of similar to a patient showing up demanding an MRI, then identifying their gall bladder on the MRI and insisting it's a painful tumor and needs to be removed, then going home and drinking poison, returning with symptoms of poisoning, but demanding the only treatment they will accept is removal of "the painful tumor" - what do you do there?
If the parents have an accredited institution backing their decisions, BCH needs to respect the parents' decision and get the hell out of the case. That would be simple overstepping of their authority and role - BCH is there to help, but if the parents prefer Tufts, BCH needs to leave the parents the hell alone - attack Tufts if they must, but not through any negative consequences to the family. Even if the family is nuttier than a truck full of fruitcakes, BCH should go down for something like this, hard.
Holy Crap, you people are ignorant.
1. Justina's Doctor moved from their home town to BCH.
2. HE was the one that diagnosed her and was treating her.
3. They took her there in order to see him during a difficult time for her.
4. BCH people NEVER LET HIM SEE HER.
5. Instead, they sent her to the Psch ward where some asshat Doctor had a program that had previously taken children away from other parents.
To reiterate. HER Doctor, who Diagnosed her and was treating her, moved to BCH. That's why they went there.
BTW, her doctor is a leading expert in the field of mitochondrial disease.
It's all out there for anyone to read with just a tiny bit of effort.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I am curious about the backstory to this attempted escape more than the foolishness of his hacking that put him in the crosshairs.
Like, where did he get the boat? Was it stolen? Borrowed?
Was it seaworthy? Sail or power? Where did they leave from?
My guess is that they took off and tried crossing the gulf stream during a period when the wind was contrary and got tossed. The wife then tossed her cookies and probably demanded they get rescued.
Knowing how things operate down there, they probably had eyes on them from the moment they left. The only surprise is that they did not show up on the FBI radar until they got picked up and IDd by the cruise ship. There is hella surveilance down there since the 80s to keep an eye on the smugglers. Even a wooden boat with negligible radar signature will still get scooped as that is what the Haitians are ghosting over on.
I doubt they even got spitting distance from Cuba before the gulf stream put them in the wash cycle and started hauling them backwards. If they had arrived, the Cubans would probably have taken a dim view of their arrival. Unless you have money and a specific float plan, they see any boat entering their sheltered bays and harbours as a yankee plot.
To be more specific (FDIA is another name for the condition): Link
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Clearly not very anonymous, if they knew exactly who he was and what he was doing, to arrest him...
Got rescued by Disney. But did not live happily ever after.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
OMG, they thought they were actually pirates! LMAO.
Whether the doctor/hospital was harming the child or not is a matter that the state and the courts were involved in. Where does this individual, acting under the Anonymous label, gain anything for anyone by injecting themselves into the debate with an attack?
This was a DDoS attack, not a fishing expedition to find incriminating documents. In the latter case, I could at least see a value to one side or another in freeing information. In this case, they just denied service to users, which in the case of a hospital, is hard to justify unless you think that BCH is equivalent to Dr. Mengele's laboratory.
I have no idea who is right or who is wrong in the original situation, but I see no utility in executing a DDoS in this scenario. It feels like the DDoS in the hands of some hackers is a "solution" looking for a problem. Or to put it more bluntly, it's used when someone who knows how to execute a DDoS just gets mad about something and wants to show how mad they are about it.
While I think sentencing for hax0ring and in general has gotten way out of hand the DDOS attacks are just lame. They require no skill, have no class and closely resemble whiney little entitled bitches pouting.
If they had defaced the hospitals website with some class in response to an action of the hospital they believed to be unjust I would be far less critical.
Yes, DDoS was a childish play, petty revenge, and not helpful to anyone from a logical standpoint.
From an emotional standpoint, the M.D. is screwing with this person using the power of his position, not that this justifies somebody screwing with his practice in some eye for an eye balance of things, but... when my first child was about to be born, I very nearly punched out a billing clerk who interjected herself into the process with a very untimely demand for money - here's a woman who has slacked off on her job for the last 3 months, finally deciding to present me with a personal request for payment (first time I'd been told how much to make the check out for), and she's delaying my wife and child from proceeding to care for what was clearly at the time absolutely without question a life and death situation, followed up by 2 weeks in ICU - delay could have made a bad situation very much worse, and here she is demanding a delay. I didn't punch her, I didn't openly threaten to punch her, but she should really know in her position just how close I came to making things worse for myself, my wife, and my child that day because of the utter banal stupidity she was perpetrating on the situation.
I have no idea who is right or who is wrong in the original situation, but I see no utility in executing a DDoS in this scenario. It feels like the DDoS in the hands of some hackers is a "solution" looking for a problem.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Munchausen by proxy is also fantastically easy to misdiagnose. With what I know about psychology and psychiatry I wouldn't even 100% trust it to be real. Neither field can claim to true understanding of how the brain works and both have a history of inventing 'quack' illnesses, and of massive misdiagnoses. I've also seen how good people like doctors or police can be at covering things up when they make a mistake - especially if it might cost them their careers or time in prison..
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..