Slashdot Mirror


American 'Vigilante Hacker' Defaces Russian Ministry's Website (ksat.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes CNN Money: An American vigilante hacker -- who calls himself "The Jester" -- has defaced the website of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in retaliation for attacks on American targets... "Comrades! We interrupt regular scheduled Russian Foreign Affairs Website programming to bring you the following important message," he wrote. "Knock it off. You may be able to push around nations around you, but this is America. Nobody is impressed."
In early 2015, CNN Money profiled The Jester as "the vigilante who hacks jihadists," noting he's a former U.S. soldier who now "single-handedly taken down dozens of websites that, he deems, support jihadist propaganda and recruitment efforts. He stopped counting at 179." That article argues that "the fact that he hasn't yet been hunted down and arrested says a lot about federal prosecutors and the FBI. Several cybersecurity experts see it as tacit approval."

"In an exclusive interview with CNNMoney this weekend, Jester said he chose to attack Russia out of frustration for the massive DNS cyberattack that knocked out a portion of the internet in the United States on Friday... 'I'm not gonna sit around watching these f----rs laughing at us.'"

13 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Re:"Tacit approval"? My nose! by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I put very little faith in the FBI nowadays. They have proven themselves to be just a political weapon of whoever is in power. Their shiny reputation is somewhat tarnished. I doubt they'll ever be trusted again to be impartial and nonpartisan.

  2. Will he be extradited? by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will he be extradited, like people who do the same get send to the US?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Will he be extradited? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. The US does not have an extradition treaty with Russia.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  3. Re:"Tacit approval"? My nose! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A disinclination to prosecute people just because they don't happen to agree with your politics *is* impartial and non-partisan. This is not a bug, but rather, a feature.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  4. Not impressed. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Defacing a website that they put up is just as impressive as painting a building with graffiti. When they start leaking documents that embarrass Russia's politicians, then and only then will you have people's attention.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  5. Re:Funny, but meh by Max_W · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Russia ... pays ... [for] ...online ... propaganda... One person from the U.S., doing this on his own without government backing...

    Do you mean the government of the United States does not allocate money to promote actively its policies online? It would be interesting to know if there is such an expense in the US budget and, if still yes, to compare it with Russia's spending in this domain.

    I looked at Wikipedia article on the US budget 2016, but I could not find detailed expenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  6. State Sponsored vs Rogue Agent? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So when a Russian, allegedly, does it to the DNC it's because Putin.

    When an American does it to Russia it's "Oh, look at that vigilante that we don't condone at all".

    1. Re:State Sponsored vs Rogue Agent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So when a Russian, allegedly, does it to the DNC it's because Putin.

      When an American does it to Russia it's "Oh, look at that vigilante that we don't condone at all".

      Exactly. Unless this "vigilante" is arrested and extradite to Russia, by the same logic that Putin was responsible for the DNC hack, it should be implied that Obama and the USA Government are responsible for this act.

      The title should read "US hacked Russian Ministry's Website".

  7. Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! by Entrope · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Martha Stewart went to federal prison for much less than Hillary Clinton and her cronies did, and with much less firm evidence against Stewart. Clinton benefited from a grotesque double standard that you have to be mindless not to see.

  8. Re:Funny, but meh by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    one person from the U.S., doing this on his own without government backing

    Sounds like the US should arrest him and extradite him. After all we'd requested the same from foreign governments.

  9. Re:Funny, but meh by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

    Russian efforts are small potatoes compared to that.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  10. Re:Funny, but meh by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  11. Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! by quax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unsurprisingly, the Republican National Committee operated an email server for White House staff to use for partisan communications and purposes.

    So we are supposed to believe that the VP office did not produce emails for days on end during some of the most critical time stretches of the Iraq war?

    Who has been lead around on the nose exactly?

    The number of classified emails that went through Hillary's server are BTW 22. Most of them were not classified at the time, the once that were didn't have the classification in the header, they were only marked in the body.

    http://www.politico.com/story/...

    http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...