Slashdot Mirror
CNN Misrepresenting etoy vs. etoys Battle?
J Hotch writes "Check out CNN's story:
eToys attacks show need for strong Web defenses.
Check out this frighteningly inaccurate description of the conflict:
"Online retailer eToys has taken legal steps to prevent a Swiss art group from using the domain name etoy.com."
This makes it sound like etoy.com was trying to muscle in on etoys.com. They don't mention that etoy.com was registered years before etoys.com was even a twinkle in some business-major's eye.
Unfortunately, they are just using the denial-of-service attacks on etoys.com as a springboard into a web security article. "
They do have a link on that very page to an idg.net article which goes into more detail about etoy and etoys, including mentioning that etoy.com was around for a year before etoys.com opened. Guess they don't fol,low their own links either...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I didn't see one when I read the article (and I was just about to post it to /. too. :-) )
I just feel they should be sure and point out who is the original aggressor here. DoS attacks are NOT how you deal with this kind of issue, but it doesn't seem like Big Business is going to leave the little guy with any other choices.
Stupid People Strike Again.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
This article is about RTMark's DoS attacks on etoys.com, not about the legal battle.
Of course it makes RTMark look bad, the way they are behaving is quite childish. They would do better to be raising money to help etoy.com's legal battle. Or informing the public about what is going on. What they are doing now is just going to hurt etoy.com and others in the same situation by raising hostility in the corporate world.
Myddrin
The article states that Etoys suffered only a 2% loss to DoS attacks. Anychances anyone knows someone on the inside (or can get info) about more realistic figures. I would be very curious to know actual stats. Also note that Etoys had not made any comments until their peak sales are slowing.
"Never under estimate the destructive power of a backhoe." -B. Chapman
Monkey see, monkey do. Monkey hear, monkey say.
- "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything" -Mark Twain
Instead of arguing over the ethics of DoS attacks, why don't all of us just go and visit etoys.com. (let's see how ready they are to handle the onslaught of this community)
if at first you don't succeed, shoot the consultant who suggested you try in the first place...
The group's Web site made available information, such as eToys' IP address, that would give attackers helpful ammunition to shoot eToys down.
Why do so many people not understand that IP addresses are not magic? Really, how hard is it to find the IP address that corresponds to etoys.com? If script kiddies can't figure it out, it's their ignorance.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Check out this frighteningly inaccurate description of the conflict
While you're at it, check out this story onPlease note: they screen each post for relevance, so no Mae Ling Mak Naked Drunk Petrified Spray Painted And Auctioned Off To Disney posts will get through.
The Kulturwehrmacht
Finding God in a Dog
Or they were writing about web security and not about etoy vs etoys. They did not misrepresent the case; they just didn't go into any detail on it. Etoys has taken action to prevent the use of etoy as a domain name. Really, if you want to be pedantic, the word should have been prohibit, but they aren't, as I said, writing about the dispute; just the effects of the dispute.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
Now, let the ranting begin:
1) The only time that I would ever advocate a DoS attack on a site is never. There is no reason to do so; sure, you might put it down for a while (etoys reported 98% instead of 100% reliability during the last few weeks), but if anything it could lead to worse things (see below). There are more effective ways to state your dislike for something.
2) CNN's not wrong; their article on the etoy/etoys things is truth. Just using a different set of words that seems to put etoys on the right side of the thing. Words are very powerful, but you can't blame CNN for misusing them.
3) I really don't like this idea of DoS attacks, especially in light of this article. Chain of events: All over e-commerce they read that a service can be put down because of DoS (they won't care why the DoS was initiated); Etoys says they have to use custom-built DoS prevention tricks to stop it; E-commerce security experts all up in arms on how to stop this; e-commerence management wonders how to easily stop it; e-commerce turns to US Government (using large bags of money) and asks them to stop it; US Government bans all TCPIP tools except port 80's. Ok, so the last one's going a bit far, but I don't doubt that this series of events can happen. Just as with the question of linking, overly long patent and trademarks, poor patents, and other junk, stuff like this only kills the net for anyone not involved in e-commerce, and even then, may take some lowend e-commerce sites down.
Moral of the story: PLEASE DONT BE A SCRIPT KIDDIE. :-P
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Well, here's the Wired story on the eToys thing... and they say supporters are calling for.. "virtual riots"...
The slant was very much one of "etoys are innocent, anyone who says otherwise is guilty", regardless of any details such as facts.
Mind you, there is that old adage of "never let facts get in the way of a good story". CNN is usually one of the more reputable of a rather poor bunch, but this really doesn't reflect well on them.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Get in there and post feedback, comment in the forums, and/or call CNN, and talk to them about what "hacker" means.
If they want to babble about crackers, fine, but they shouldn't be confusing two very different groups.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
You can comment at:
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
This is pretty standard for CNN, unfortunately. Most everything in their "Insurgency on the Internet" is fluff.
This looks very much as if they just sat down with eToys and wrote down everything that eToys said to write down. Further, RTMark doesn't really do much to make a case against eToys. (Though, to be fair, they may have tried, and CNN simply failed to insert that part.)
I guess this is symptomatic of the larger problem in media, in which nobody's willing to present a story with more than one side. The easiest side for CNN is to make eToys look like the good guys, and the evil hackers to be the bad guys.
I'm not sure that this can be turned around, at least not through CNN. Surely, though, we can get other news sources (Wired, of course) to do fair coverage of this. But CNN is part of a large group of media outlets that just aren't going to be representing the interests of a small political-arts-action group when their opponent is a large e-commerce business that advertises on their networks.
Of course a 'respected' news source is going to side with the toy distributer (intentionally or otherwise) at this time of year, and more so when it is against artists who are not beyond using nudity in their art, which no doubt translates to 'pornographer' in the mind of most people when talking about the Internet. [That was a long sentance. The management apologises.]
But really, you would hope that someone still believe in *investigative* journalism.
Shawn Poulsen (Fruan)
"On Slashdot, many obvious things are insightful." - Annonymous Coward, 2000/7/9
Obviously, I don't have all the facts (IANAL). However, from what I've learned from these articles, I won't purchase anything from etoys, and I will encourage others not to do so.
You do not have free license to be impolite just because you are a large company. A courteous exchange of links would have saved everyone a great deal of trouble.
This article is an obvious farse on what is going on. I think anyone who has any idea of what is going on here will immediately realize what hype-motivated trash journalism this really is. What kind of "hacking group" allows themselves to be interviewed by CNN, and mentioned by name? I think this is an article to laugh about, not to be concerned about..
especially this part :
Using another method, an attacker can send malformed packets that give routers, firewalls or switches a kind of network indigestion.
Now.. I've had routers give ME indigestion, but never the other way around.. maybe someone has found some way to make them feel my pain!
//Phizzy
"Most European technology just isn't worth our stealing," -- Former CIA chief James Woolsey, referring to Echelon
The group's Web site made available information, such as eToys' IP address
What sickos. Who knows what these loonies will do next.
I recieved one of RTMark's e-mails; they clearly got my e-mail address off of /. because I responded to the earlier story about this. So, since I piped in with support of etoy (my post included simply options of other toy retailers to use, and my angle was that these other options are actually cheaper than eToys)
So, let's see... RTMark takes it upon themselves to harvest my e-mail address, send me Spam, and tries to enlist the spam's recipients to engage in an illegal DOS attack against eToys -- and they're the good guys?
The news article may not have been complete, (gee, Slashdot's never done that...) but they did get it right: this is an illegal attack that does nothing except make legitimate advocates for etoy look bad.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
Check out: http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=13177 There's also a place to leave feedback. Probably the best way to let them know how far off base they are...
This article seems be more about "hackers" (incorrect use again: I like to hack around a bit, but I don't do things like that) than anything else. It must be a slow news day or something as they've resorted to sensationalist stories with no real content.
Why run such a big article (it's at the top of their page with the main headlines) about "hackers" when all they've done is reduce the availability of the eToys' web site by a huge and crippling 2%!!!? These "hackers" have been fairly inaffective according to this article.
Bah!
You know, what eToys did was really unfair... but these gay DoS attacks from this RFM guy aren't justified. If this guy didn't have a computer, he'd have a can of spray paint instead. He's just trying to get attention.
While the article is correct in what it does say, omitting important info about the case leaves people people with the implicit assumption that etoy, and by extension "art groups" and "Internet activists", are automatically untrustworthy.
What I wonder is whether CNN has some vested interest in seeing Etoys win (Do they receive advertising revenue? Do they own stock in the company?), or it could just be old fashioned promotion of the money-making-above-all-else doctrine.
What annoyed me about this article was the obvious cut-and-paste journalism she exhibited by carelessly throwing out a bunch of script kiddie buzzwords for effect. Did everyone read how RTMark gave out EToys' IP address?!?!
The nerve!
Here's her info:
Ellen Messmer
Senior Editor, Enterprise Applications
emessmer@nww.com
(202) 879-6752
Fax: (202) 347-2365
Network World
1331 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 505
Washington, DC 20004
Etoys ping requests are timing out: I suppose these are the advanced "proprietary" defenses they're boasting?
How does one even disable that? I didn't realize it was a controllable behavior.
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
Please, keep your letters calm, to the point, and refrain from exhibiting the lower reaches of your vocabulary.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"The group's Web site made available information, such as eToys' IP address, that would give attackers helpful ammunition to shoot eToys down."
:)
Quick, somebody stop these guys...
I'm not particularly pro-DoS attacks, but given that the courts are incapable or unwilling to understand the dynamics of domain name disputes, it appears there's little recourse for etoy. eToys deserves everything they get.
A visit to netcraft tells me the following: www.etoys.com is running Etoys Web server 1.2 on Linux
No wonder they have such excellent availability!
I read the article as talking about RTM's attacks on etoys. Which, btw, is really adult. </sarcasm> There are other ways to fight this battle. Etoys is in the wrong. After all, you don't see the government getting an injunction against whitehouse.com, do you? And RTM's actions will just serve to possibly bring more calls for legislation here in the US, more than anything else.
<sarcasm> Thanks guys.</sarcasm>
That's the impression a got after reading the CNN atricle.
Not to mention they mention the "unix-based" Tribal Flood Network. As if they are trying to group anyone that uses a non-MS OS into the "script kiddie" catagory that trys to take down "legit" e-commerce sites like etoys.com.
Which makes me wonder if Ted Turner has some sort of interest in etoys.com. I've seen CNN spin the hell out of other stories that were against a Turner company. Turner uses CNN to promote all of his ideas. It's not called the Clinton News Netowrk for nothing.
Just my $.02, but NEVER rely on CNN when they put too much of a negative spin on one thing and positive spin on another in the same story. CNN projects it's financial and politcal ideas in it's "unbiased" stories more then any other news organization I've seen.
I know what really happened. Other news groups reported on what really happened. I take CNN at face value, so the story didn't really surprise me.
They didn't have links to any of those utilities in their "related websites" section. Is that bad journalism or what?
Slashdot posting a story about journalist integrity? The same site that will post almost any rumor as news? Hello?
I don't see anything wrong with this article. It states simply that etoys.com is "taking legal steps to prevent a Swiss art group from using the domain name etoy.com." They use that statement to lead into the relevant topic of a group launching DoS attacks against etoys.com. Within the scope of this particular article, who cares which site was there first? That's irrelevant. It's just simply stating a fact, nothing more. This fact (etoys.com disputing etoy.com) was the catalyst that started the DoS attacks against etoys.com. That is all the article is saying.
I don't see any problem whatsoever.
Furthermore, nowhere in this article does it say anything about who is at fault in the etoys.com - etoy.com issue. So, it does not lay any foundation, whatsoever, that could be used for any misrepresentation of any kind.
With that in mind, it's easy to see that the poster is obviously reading way too much into this one sentence.
I fail to even see how this story even made it up on Slashdot.
This shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone. We all know the media is clueless. But instead of just being upset about it, take the time to send feedback to CNN. They'll never learn if we don't tell them.
As with so many of Ted Turner's companies, the coverage by CNN is accurate, but is not balanced. The facts are correct, but other facts that would allow a reasonable decision to be made on the topic are just plain missing. Its sort of the old saw about the NY Times masthead: "All the news that fits we print."
I mostly agree with you. However, the government banning all but tcp port 80 would not improve things significantly, because:
a) Most sites can already go to their upstream providers and make such requests, which would have largely the same effect.
b) Despite filtering everything else, I, and many others, could, (and have, to varying degrees) written programs to send TCP fragments (e.g., SIN, FIN, RST) at excessive rates. Furthermore, these types of attacks are, in many ways, more potent than a trivial ping attack against a reasonably configured site.
doh.
This story looks like it was planted by etoys. I just don't see how anyone knowledgeable about current events could get it that wrong. As usual, there's no email address on the CNN site. They want you to fill out this form on their website which probably gets copied to /dev/null
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
"Denial-of-service attacks can be launched using any of dozens of programs available in hacker chat forums and on the Web" Or they could simply use ping. Which is an essential network tool that comes with just about every operating system. There is no need to blame the "dozens of programs". Blame the ethics of the people doing the DoS's.
This is the contact info for the author of the article. I've sent her an email with links to the Slashdot articles concerning the etoy/Etoys battle.
Please, no flames.
Ellen Messmer
Senior Editor, Enterprise Applications
emessmer@nww.com
(202) 879-6752
Fax: (202) 347-2365
Network World
1331 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 505
Washington, DC 20004
I have chatted with my co-workers about this. They feel that since the legal case involve international entities, it might drag on for a long time. In the meantime, etoy.com will be shutdown pending ruling. We feel destructive hacking might not be good for the cause of helping etoy.com. As an admininstrator working for a network provider, we wish we could call everyone who has the control of the internet core router, pick a time and stop or drop routing for etoy.com traffic for an hour as a silent protest, and show the world we are united!!!
Woefully, CNN is just using a bit of razzle-dazzle by touching on a hot topic (domain name disputes) to get people to read an otherwise off-putting technical article. They do their integrity a disservice, here. However, there's also a lesson to be learned by the RTMarks of the world: Before you perform an act online terrorism, think about the light that your act will be framed in. Will you help your cause or harm it?
The net result is that now a lot of people think etoy is some cyber-squatting (what an unfortunate term) semi-terrorist bunch of geeks. Many will never even know that it had anything to do with art.
The 1st Law of Mass Media is "Give the people what they want." It appears CNN is doing exactly that... after all, it is Christmas, and (by the way, this has nothing to do with my opinion on the subject [I support eToy], just my perception of how CNN is handling it):
There may be other parallels, these were just readily apparent. Remember what ESR likes to talk about with regard to technology in the media: people only pay attention to tech stories with protagonists. In this case, they've got a protagonist (the Whos down at eToys) and a story that they more-or-less already know (or at least think they do)... what more could John Q. Public ask for?
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
It strikes me that the Internet is the closest thing we have to an anarchy: a lack of centralized control, rule by consensus, and sometimes mob rule.
:)
DoS attacks are the network equivalent to violence. They're intended to "wipe 'em out," as surely as a bullet to the head.
And put in those terms, it's downright scary. What we have are a bunch of self-righteous hoodlums who put their own *OPINION* of what's right and wrong well above the ability of others to continue to exist.
Yah, I'm using hyperbole. It's not really that extreme. No one is likely to die from this.
But the comparisons can be drawn, and perhaps indicate the biggest flaw with anarchic thought. Some right bastard is always gonna be more than willing to go to the extreme, rather than approach a solution from a non-violent direction.
Inneresting bit of thought, IMHO, anyway.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Man, I've got to write this date down in my diary. Slashdot complaining about someone else's accuracy in reporting. Next thing there will be a story about incorrect grammer or spelling on some site.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Figures - CNN came up with the idea of 24hr headline news - perfect for the attention-challenged U.S. teevee watcher. Now something like this. While the stories do relate, it would have been far better to devote the bulk of the column to the background story to explain the lead-in. But, no, it's soooo much hipper to talk about l33t hax0rz because that's much easier to sensationalize. Reporting, yes, but not responsible.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Why didn't etoy.com just sue eToys.com first? They should have known that some big ass American company would try to run them off the road.The whole situation is so galling and absurd. Why isn't eToys' email being stopped and its website shutdown? I would like to know who has the authority to shutdown a website in Switzerland anyway.
The whole nature of the web is way too American. Far from being an international phenom, the web is just an extension of Americana. Not a bad thing, except when American biz interests start to clash with the rest of the world.
Attn: moderator - score as a 5, my karma needs an upgrade !!!
"We learn most when we have to invent"-Jean Piaget
Did anyone notice that etoys stock has dropped half its value in the last month? Right in the middle of the xmas buying season too. Perhaps the shareholders are paying attention...
quote.yahoo.com/q?s=etys
Honestly, it's not a huge surprise that CNN has posted a story that's worded this way. I mean, first of all, they probably get ad dollars from eToys.com. And second, what, did you think the mainstream press would defend some artsy-fartsy freak group, so offensive to blue-collar America? I mean, hello... etoy.com had the work "fuck" on their page! *gasp* Quick, someone get the smelling salts!
There are many, many things that annoyed me about this CNN article. Here's a short list:
1) They did not mention that etoy.com was registered two YEARS before eToys.com. The wording makes it sound like etoy.com was just playing off the popularity of eToys.com, which is not the case.
2) CRACKERS, not HACKERS! For crying out loud! How many times can they get this wrong? Isn't there something we could do to get these reporters a clue? crackers Crackers CRACKERS!
3) OK, so someone posted eToys.com's IP address on the web. Oh nooo, Mr. Bill! God FORBID anyone should do that! As we all know, nameservers don't do that kind of thing every day. IPs are not meant to be seen by the general public! All them thar numbers and dots, those could mean *anything*!
Oh, and as for those "proprietary" defenses being used by eToys: why am I not surprised that these people would take from the Open Source community and then not even be willing to disclose new (if they are new) ways of warding off attackers? Yeah, OK, I understand that this might make them more vulnerable, but then again.... well, we all know the good arguments for sharing information, so I won't rehash those.
All in all, it's no more than I expected from CNN - but I would like to see the bar raised on these types of "mainstream technical" articles.
It exists to sell your eyeballs to advertisers.
The more eyeballs, the more dollars revenue.
Facts just scare the audience away.
Adopt this cynical (and realistic) understanding of the news media, and it'll serve you well.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
This is the address I used. The form is cramped, but I told them what was on my mind. Remember it's best to offer POLITE constructive criticism.
I believe that the correct contact information for the person who wrote the article is at "http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=13177".
Be polite, people - it IS possible to be firm but polite, and your recipient will be more likely to listen to you instead of tuning you out.
The few rare times I've had any firsthand knowledge of a story reported in any mainstream media, the facts and details and emphasis have been so far off base it was comical. And it is always even worse when there's any kind of technology involved. Not long ago, I read a story about how some little company here in Denver invented XML. As far as I'm concerned, I fully expect crappy reporting, and I fully expect news media to print press releases as news stories. I don't know that there is a legitimate way to explain the story to Joe User and Jane Stocktrader. What I do know is that Etoys' stock is falling, and I suspect it's got more than a little to do with FUD about the evil cracking threats and the fact that domain names are fragile things that can be shut down with little or no notice, over even the slightest or most unfounded disagreement.
From the Domain bullying link at IDG.
... eToys filed its lawsuit after several customers said they stumbled on Etoy site ...
>
> and were offended by some of its material
Geez!
Since when is the site's owner/operator responsible for the mistakes and/or stupidity of the users?
If you stumble, it's your own fault. Nobody tripped you.
-M
CNN didn't write the article, so all the CNN conspiracy theorists can calm down. CNN "outsources" their technical content to IDG.NET. Ellen Messmer, the author, is a writer for Network World, you can contact her at:
/. crowd. The torches are lit, the pitchforks are out, and everyone is all worked up. /. itself pubishes poorly researched stories weekly, and it doesn't ignite this sort of flaming. (Oh wait, it does! I take that back 8-) )
Ellen Messmer
Senior Editor, Enterprise Applications
emessmer@nww.com
(202) 879-6752
Fax: (202) 347-2365
Network World
1331 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 505
Washington, DC 20004
Personally, I find this to be typical sloppy trade rag journalism. I don't think IDG has an private agenda (like the microsoft loving ZDNET). They just slapped a story together and pushed it out without understanding all the background.
A good solution would be to educate Ms. Messmer is a calm, controlled manner, but somehow I don't see that happening with the
-Twid
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
There's another spin I want to put on this - and that is that these script kiddies are performing an invaluable job - exposing security holes without doing *too much* damage. What's worse - a defaced webpage (graffiti) or industrial espionage. Which method would you like to have done to your web server? I prefer the former - atleast I know when it happened, and it's easy to clean up.
Microsoft would never have released any security patches to SMB filesharing, or the SAM database "syskey" in SP6a or a plethora of other fixes if it wasn't for the pervasiveness of these "script kiddies". Conventional methods of writing to Microsoft failed - read any bugtraq posting about M$ and it'll go something like this: "I wrote to them a month ago and never heard anything, so I'm posting this really easy way to compromise any M$ OS to the public. Thanks Microsoft.
I'm reminded of a quote from Southpark: "Blame Canada! Blame Canada!" It's true, a hundred times over. We'll just shovel the blame around - it's the script kiddies fault (our root password was aadvark, but that's not OUR fault!) - it's the governments fault - it's Microsoft's fault... how about "It's your fault." They point the finger at the admin, the admin points the finger at the vendor, and all the user gets is the finger. Thank god for script kiddies - they crack security enough to get it fixed, and they have the intelligence of lobotomized flatworms - ie: they can't do much real damage. Look at it another way: if they really were a threat, don't you think the FBI would be more active in trying to catch them?
We need "peaceful" protests -- not disruptive actions. Yes we have to fight for our freedom rights, but doing childish things like ping floods, etc., will only give a very bad image to people outside of our circle, and actually advance the cause of those who want to take away our freedom ...[snip]... What we need is to protest in a non-disruptive way.
I am usually not in favor of incitement to riots, but this position goes a bit too far the other way. Peaceful and non-disruptive protests make sense only when the imbalance of power between the two sides isn't too great. If your position on the totem pole is several feet below its bottom, then all the non-disruptive protests in the world aren't going to do you and your cause any good. At best you'll politely told to fuck off and not bother important gentlemen busy with their important matters.
The proper criterion for protest is not how disruptive it is, but rather how effective it is in achieving its aims. Sometimes the best way is to be very, very polite. Other times, being polite is useless but being obnoxious and irritating works wonders. It all depends.
I am not in favor of ping-flooding etoys' servers -- this attack is ineffective and is not likely to make etoys see the light. The management will just tell their tech people to fix it, and fix it they will, it's not hard at all. On the other hand, I am also not in favor of wringing one's hand lamenting the horrible state of affairs and writing whiny letters to congresscritters. If you want to do something, do something effective instead of pissing in the wind.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I have to watch CNN at work and the way they report makes me sick. Rather than giving references, they cave in to cheasy and dubious leads: "Sources say..." "The FBI says..." "Officials report..." That's the only thing that seperates it and the daytime talk shows.
When is CNN going to do any actual reporting, rather than following up on press releases by contacting the obviously biased three letter agencies? Many stories I have seen where I knew some background, they have screwed up. There are exceptions, where adventurous reporters really mingled with the communities involved. But that's rare. I get to see CNN Headline News rehash what looks like government and sponsor approved spineless news.
Further, they have to sensationalize on any blood and guts violence and terrorist related thing and hype it up like the world is going to blow at midnight, December 31st.
Maybe some good old fashioned news reporting and none of their constant speculative biased editorials would be a welcome change. Why don't they pick up local news events from city television stations that are always interesting? Why do we have to watch them stir up the hornet's nest on breaking problems and take the side who has the biggest media relations staff? They keep on reporting on events like compost that doesn't quite yet have a chance of into anything fruitful while they take sides.
when I checked it was 204.71.184.166.
Moral: Its easy to find - its not a secret. Spinning articles is lying.
Their was a posting last week or 2 weeks agon on Slashdot about etoys.com versus etoy.com. Now this. I think this conflict was reportable. At this point, Slashdot is obsessing on reportable topics (ie. old news and repeated news). If Slashdot is to remain an icon of technology news on the Internet, then perhaps it's editors need to refocus their posting strategy.
So, if NSI will suspend a domain name in dispute, why doesn't etoy.com file against etoys.com, then they both get shut down until the suit is resolved? Fair is fair.
I know this is kinder negative but even tho RTMarks is not part of etoy they are goona be linked somehow by the mainstream media:o(
There was a story on HNN about this guy and his promise to do this a wee while back
http://www.hackernews.com/arch.html?121599
Error #302: Reality.sys corrupt! Reboot universe? (Y/N)
Having noticed the original article on cnn.com, I immediately went to /. to report the link. Of course, /. being /., there was already a link up to the article, along with a zillion replies.
I got to thinking - if I were a clever executive at etoys.com who wanted to pump up the publicity for the site, especially during the holiday season, what would be the most efficient resource to use for this purpose?
Then it hit me - What is the most potent energy source in the universe? Why, the unchecked ire of righteous net.rogues, of course! All that would be needed to harness such energy would be a minor slight, preferably one related to online freedoms.
A plan is thus hatched - create a decoy company, a "little guy". Abuse the decoy company by throwing around monetary weight. When the decoy goes down for the count, the net.rogues are sure to reach a hand into the ring for a tag, and come in blazing. The media being what it is, it won't be able to resist reporting on the scoundrels and whatever retalitory actions they take.
Result? My company comes out the hero, having been abused by those evil C^HHackers, and gets a ton of free press to boot, right around our most profitable time.
Or maybe not.
:)
stil
SURPRISE!! This sorry excuse for unbiased journalism also made it into the trade mag "Network World." Sad, very sad.
Yes, how about "Security through Moral Business Activities."
An article oh how not to piss off the collected crackers and kiddies of the world by abusing the legal system would have been the only one that could use Etoy vs Etoys in a correct hacking context. Anything else is out of context and therefore poor reporting (or done with some ulterior motive).
+&x
ETOY.COM was registered in 1995:
while ETOYS:COM was registered more than 2 years later:
ms
and be polite...
Ellen Messmer
Senior Editor, Enterprise Applications
emessmer@nww.com
(202) 879-6752
Fax: (202) 347-2365
Network World
1331 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 505
Washington, DC 20004
Etoys stole etoy.com's domain. Stole. Etoy had a domain and now they have none, this is theft. The fact that they used the (ignorant) US court system to accomplish this theft does not make it any less a crime.
Personally, in my mind (and in that of others), etoys.com has forfeited their right to have a domain on the internet. I think the FBI has better things to do than investigate one of a hundred thousand possible atttackers that may want to take Etoys.com.
Obviously any attacker has their own personal responsibility not to get caught, and those that wish to attack etoys.com (a moral venture, IMHO) has the obligation to protect themselves.
Should etoys be attacked via a DoS attack? No - this will not be permanent enough of a solution. They should be removed from the internet, but not through a method that can be detected and dealt with in a very short timeframe.
Without extra-legal action, what consequences will actually bestowed to etoys.com?
Action: Amazon sues B&N - courts act like ninnys
Response:Richard Stallman calls for an Amazon boycot.
Response: Amazon doesn't notice.
Action: WTO goes to Seattle - cops act like ninnys
Response: Techno-Hippies attempt DOS Sit-in
Response: WTO doesn't notice.
Action: EToys sues EToy. - courts act like ninnys
Response: RTMark attempts DOS attacks.
Response: EToys doesn't notice.
Are we seeing a pattern here?
Oops. I missed something
Response: Amazon, WTO, and EToys get great press coverage, the kind of coverage PR departments can't buy, and love every minute of it.
Response: A bunch of people get upset over hacker/cracker definations. (When you get your system raided by the Secret Service, let me know. [I, at least, got a cool T-Shirt.] Until then get off your high horse.)
Response: People get upset over biased reporting and report on that in a biased manner.
No Zen is good zen
They're on LINUX, so they can do this on a router:
/sbin/ipchains -A input -i eth0 -p icmp --icmp-type ping -d 0.0.0.0/0 -j DENY
using -j DENY over -j REJECT means that the packet is just dropped by the kernel like it never existed. It means that a reply is never sent. It takes a lot less cpu time and bandwidth this way, as a reply packet does not have to be sent.
Does this remind anyone of a Gibson novel? Or anything else remenicent of the dark future/cyberpunk genera. We have the corporate machine on one side and the hacker group on the other. It even goes so far as to instiute bragging about the act of agression before the fact. Just to spite corp. and show that the anarchist can do it. They say truth is stranger than fiction! I wonder when the next corporate war will start out over properity rights, intellectual properties, or actual land holdings. Maybe M$ will get in on it and a "black op" will go in and open a position up for others in M$! You laugh now. But who would have thought the hacker/cracker events would have come so far/so quickly. Only a few authors, like Gibson.
The wages of sin are unreported and back taxes are hell to pay.
It seems unlikely to me that CNN is going to place any news in such a way that it will make a sponsor look bad. Conversely, it will help insure that their sponsor is able to stay in business if they can denigrate the sponsor's opponents.
I am posting a politely critical E-mail to CNN, because the last thing that I'll permit anyone to say is that I don't try, but I think they may have already chosen their sides on this one.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
2) CNN's not wrong; their article on the etoy/etoys things is truth. Just using a different set of words that seems to put etoys on the right side of the thing. Words are very powerful, but you can't blame CNN for misusing them.
This is how to mislead people. I suppose Rule 1 of journalism is that words are powerful, and can be misused. You're not supposed to outright lie, but just not tell the whole truth, and imply something through omission or choice of words. Later if anyone complains, you point at the words and say "See, I never wrote anything like that! If you look carefully I clearly did not write anything that explicity says that."
Prevent means to stop something from happening, so the CNN article can suggest that etoy never had etoy.com to begin with. They could have said "stop" or "discontinue", which would have been slightly more accurate, but they chose not to. There might not have been any malicious intent, but then what are journalists going to school for?
thank you for saying that. I should have saved one moderator point to "funny you up". That definately deserved it :D
This isn't news for nerds we're talking about. It's more like news for people who use their computer to hold the desk down from walking away at work. Maybe they can use word, get emails, send electronic cards. The average CNN veiwer does not know of NSLOOKUP or WHOIS or even the almighty PING. Not that the reporter who wrote this peice knows either, or cares I guess...
That's an excellent metaphor. First I just wanted to point out some facts about what happened in Seattle, then I wanted to show a different side of the metaphor which I think is more relevant to etoys vs. kiddies.
:)
Here is what I saw in Seattle, as a legal observer, a protestor, and a member of Food Not Bombs (a significant non-destructive Seattle anarchist group):
The "black bloc" who broke windows numbered at least 40-50. Not all of these people broke windows, but all were collaborating in this action. In terms of "provoking government over-reaction" - it may have been intended that way but the tear gas had been used at least an hour prior to the first broken window. (It's my belief that government overreaction, which despite the chaos on Tuesday really kicked in on Wednesday, was more a factor of Clinton's presence; the Secret Service's "if things go bad Wednesday, we have to have crushing superiority and readiness for ruthless tactics" philosophy became a self-fulfilling prophecy.)
The Etoy thing is not about provoking overreaction though. To my mind the more pertinent aspect of the metaphor is the black bloc's belief that their actions were necessary to get media coverage, and that even negative coverage served to spread their message. I'm sure that some script kiddies feel the same way. And when major media gets the story totally wrong, as in this case, it only fuels their attitude. "Their gonna twist the story anyway, at least this way they won't ignore it." IMO a counter-productive attitude, but certainly one I can sympathize with.
(Wouldn't it be nice if etoys sued CNN for indirectly encouraging the DoS attacks through their biased coverage?
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
CNN is oriented towards BUSINESS news, not art, legal, or personal liberties news. Obviously, this bias can and will slant everything they report. Get over it.
Server: ns.microsoft.com
Address: 207.46.131.30
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.etoys.com
Address: 204.71.184.166
Duh! You can figure that out pretty easily, even if you're running Windows!
Wasn't he a convicted IRA terrorist? So, do you think that RTMark should start using semtex instead of DoS attacks? Better childish than murderous.
They install IRC clonebots, "FludNets", BackOrifice, NetBus, r00tkits, and all other manner of crap.
You make it sound so harmless.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Some fodder for the conspiracy theorists here:
At least one right-to-life group that was known for blocking the entrance to abortion clinics with sit-ins was successfully prosecuted and fined for a whole lot of money (millsions?) under the RICO (Racketeering and corruptions-related, used to be used mostly on the mob) statute. That seems to me a very close parallel to this case.
If this sit-in really did damage (it doesn't seem like it has) then this might be a good vehicle for eToys to use to go after RTMark.
-cwk.
I'll begin by admitting that I haven't followed this story as closely as I could have, but I have gleaned the major points.
The issue at stake seems to be one of trademark law. While I do agree that what Etoys.com has done may be underhanded and ethically flawed, they are legally in the right.
The trademark for EToys was aparently registered in 1990 (5 years before Etoy.com was started) by a third party to the current fiasco.* It was later purchased by Etoys.com. If this is true the following must also be true (barring the existence of a vast conspiracy on the part of the previous trademark owner & Etoys.com):
--The members of etoy.com had an equal opportunity to track down the owner of the etoys trademark and aquire it in order to protect themselves from this type of action.
--The members of etoy.com also had the opportunity to register similar TLDs in order to protect their interests.
This being said, I cannot believe that this is a simple, cut & dried case of corporate victimization.
I sympathize with the members of etoy.com, but I don't find it justification for the childishness of DOS attacks, etc.
Of course, the very best disruption, for any corporation, is a highly visible and effective boycott of their product(s). Surely, that's a no-brainer?
One more thing, while I'm on this subject: The Seattle WTO protests (complete with property-specific violence) were a great success, measured just about any way you like. Somehow nobody seems to ever explain that the 60's were a time of change in part just because there were so many different -- even divergent -- goals and strategies. So, some of us can boycott, some can be messing about with DoS, others can hire lawyers... that's what "do your own thing" meant.
eToys bought the trademark from Etna Toys, which had filed for it in 1990. HOWEVER the trademark office had originally DENIED etoys the transfer, for reasons nobody know. They then applied for the trademark later, in 1999 i think.
Maybe if you people had HALF a brain you would look for the truth.. The DoS attacks where not "attacks" they were a "virtual sit in", a web page that would load into you browser and repeatly call up etoys web page. It was not one person doing this.. there were thousands of people that loaded the page up, so they could prove a point. I dont see any thing wrong with that
Along these lines, there was a case in italy about a year ago where it was ruled that a woman that was wearing tight blue jeans who was raped had to have helped her attackers, because they were so difficult to get out of. The judge said this shows consent, and she _couldn't_ have been raped. Strange, but true.
Moral of the story: Wear baggy clothes in italy.
In the US "auction" legal system, whichever party places the highest bid (in legal fees) wins the verdict. It is unlikely that etoy.com (regardless of how long they've been around) will be able to outbid eToys.
Here is an idea that is so strange that it just might work: Why not drop toysrus a note asking them to pay for etoy's legal fund? Big legal spending equates to big wins. If everyone at /. wrote in, I am sure that the big brick would come to save the day. jake wachman
Seems to me that this is another attempt by a rich, corporate American company to exercise power in places that it has no right to claim jurisdiction in.
Something akin to a "Virtual Manifest Destiny"
Look at the three cases in the news right now -
So, once again it's some Big American company with Big American dollars using Worthless American laws to enforce jurisdiction over other people as they see fit. It's not just Micro$oft anymore... it's any "dot com" with money and news media friends !!!
Were I to launch attacks against online merchants, I wouldn't do something so silly as just trying to create a lot of traffic. I would try to stress out their system as heavily as I could - say with a Perl script generating random "purchases" with garbage names and garbage credit cards...
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Be firm, not evil with the below information. For starters, call the PR guy, he answers his phone directly. eToys Company Contact Information eToys 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 664-8100 service@etoys.com News Media Contact Ken Ross Vice President of Communications (310) 664-8410 kross@etoys.com Jonathan Cutler Public Relations Manager (310) 664-8550 jcutler@etoys.com Investor Relations Contact Suki Shattuck Director of Investor Relations (310) 664-8356 ir@etoys.com Customer Service Contact If you would like to speak to a customer service representative about your order, please call us at 1-800-GO-ETOYS (1-800-463-8697). We are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If you are calling from outside the United States, please dial 1-310-664-8530.
CNN??? Bleaach.
Regarding the etoys.com cyberwar: CNN probably figured that the technical aspect is way too much for the average user to handle, BUT a story on denial-of-service as a cyberwarfare weapon is an interesting piece of news fit to print. Ode to the Age of Sound Bites!!!
Please be realistic. They know what they are doing. Propaganda and deception is what they do for a living. Your letters will go straight to the bit bucket.
Here is whats wrong with a DoS attack. Just great script kiddys just turnned EToys into innocent victioms and etoy.com into evil vile bad guys in the public eye.
This in no way helps etoy.com... Many will now reguard them as a website willing to resort to vile tricks. Forget that etoy.com predates etoys by a few years. In launching a DoS attack on Etoys the supporters of etoy.com have hurt etoy.coms position.
Thanks to this there is little hope that etoy.com will ever hear the end of this (they will win in cort I'm pritty shure of that it's the larger cort of public opinion where they'll continue to do battle)
This isn't much more than techno chest thumpping and dose no one any good...
I don't actually exist.
they use fud and lies because it works out better for them, a limited group of people to effect a very large mass of people. even if they say next time "we take it back" it changes how people think
deceiving them from how it really is.
They decided to publish it.
I'm sure that outsourcing an article would be no defense in a libel suit.
--
I started using the net a lot in late 1992 and it was a great place to be.... the whole E-toy/E-toys issue takes the buscuit showing that the internet is truly dead.... And the CNN reporting shows that there are some serious morons out there who dont get what it has always been about. So sad.... Thankyou corporate America..... for stuffing up yet another great thing.
If you have access to DNS, you can deny/restrict access to etoys.com perfectly legitimately, by simply putting an alias entry in /etc/hosts and getting your DNS to look there first.
Link it to somewhere useful, like an etoy.com protest site.
If you own/manage a network support etoy by doing this.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Try sending them mail asking about the purchase you made that was due to arrive 2 weeks ago...They
can't afford to not look at those mails..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I am being realistic. I recognize the fact that they are deceptive most of the time. But at least I can see that they 'may' have just made a simple error. If you just accept that they are deceptive and do nothing about then you are just as bad as they are. It doesn't hurt to write feedback.
Joe User will not be checking the discussions linked to the CNN article, but other journalists will. "CNN blew the ETOYS story" is an angle that a local journalist can take to further HIS career.
So keep the "Who is the real hijacker?" and "Who really denied service for an entire month?" questions at the top of the CNN discussion list.
"DoS attacks are the network equivalent to violence. They're intended to "wipe 'em out," as surely as a bullet to the head.
/. and CNN are misrepresenting this whole "attack" by rtmark- rtmark was a coordinator, but the attack didn't have the strength it did (not that it was devastating) because only people from rtmark, or the Electronic Disturbance Theatre, or whatever group were participating- it was as strong as it was (again, I'm not trying to imply that it blew anybody off the map, but it did get noticed) because a bunch of independent individuals did the gruntwork...
And put in those terms, it's downright scary. What we have are a bunch of self-righteous hoodlums who put their own *OPINION* of what's right and wrong well above the ability of others to continue to exist."
Excuse me? It seems to me that applies more to eToys.com! A Denial of Service attack, realistically, is analogous to a real-life picket line- temporarily annoying to service providers and consumers. And both
If anything, the net equivalent to a "bullet in the head" is the absolutely shameful actions eToys took against an artist's collective that antedated them by 2 years- getting an injunction to prevent etoy from using etoy.com- under a $10,000 penalty per day of disobedience.
To me, at least, there was nothing particularly unusual (at least in the history of peaceful protest) about what the DoS protesters did, except that it was done with electronic tools.
Rtmark and other etoy supporters (none of which are affiliated with or coordinated by members of etoy, something they make clear) are also planning several physically based anti-eToys actions, including boycotts & (if I remember correctly) fundraisers to help etoy fight the legal battle... although these are nothing more than token gestures, as you'd have to have financial clout comparable to eToys to be able to effectively fight a legal battle such as this in another country. (etoy is a decentralized collection of performance artists spread around europe)
Before condemning rtmark and the rest for their "irresponsible" actions, consider the frightening precedent that eToys is trying to set, using cheap smear tactics- what these anti-etoys groups are doing pales in comparison...
(oh yeah, I'm posting under anonymous coward because I'm too lazy to create an account. You can reach me at mrsaturnine@crosswinds.net)
Quote: "We're going to make an example of them" said Ray Thomas, RTMark's spokesman. [He] claims the etoy.corporation wants to destroy eToys.com People! We have to ake a stand somewhere! We cannot let this evil company (eToys.com) destroy the etoy.corporation. etoy.corporation has already been stripped of thier domain (etoy.com) even though etoy.corporation had etoy.com registered years before eToys.com ever existed! They have a temporary news page up: Http://www.toywar.com Go check it out. Lets fight for our rights.
http://www.eviltoy.com/boycottButton.gif Put this everywhere