Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the FBI raided Anonymous

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 168 posts

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#141

Post by roel_v »

sesqu wrote: post #138
roel_v wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entering with an armed team is SOP, mostly to protect policemen. These are just guys doing a job, in the vast majority of cases a good and just job, who want to go home to their wives and children in the evening. Some (most) raids could theoretically be done by just knocking on the door; but sometimes some crazy man will start shooting back, or running away, or try to destroy evidence. Rush-entry raids with flashbang…

Well, around here the cops know who has guns, as well as whether they're known to be a bit crazy. The police are also usually not treated like an invading army, so it's apples for oranges. I'd at least suggest holstering the weapons until they're needed and weighing the probability of encryption against the probability of forceful self-defense, case by case. If for some reason there's reason to believe that the perso…

"The police are also usually not treated like an invading army"

(emphasis mine)

This shows you don't understand the point (I'm not so much talking about this specific case or even raids on computer criminals anymore, rather in general). The exact point is that sometimes it does happen, but you don't know why. That's why you need to treat every opportunity, no matter how minute, as more dangerous than it actually is, or than you actually think it will be, because the consequences are so out of balance.

Let me put it this way: do you feel that 500 unnecessarily forceful raids, each destroying a door and 2 pieces of furniture, and taking a night of sleep away from 500 individuals, are better or worse than 1 policy officer shot in the leg (not even deadly)?

I think the shot wound is worse, and therefore wouldn't mind authorizing a raid even when I'm not 100% sure there is acute danger. Actually I'd authorize when there's even just a 1% chance of forceful resistance with a knife.

(the trade off may get different when suspects are harmed in the raid, I'm assuming sufficiently trained police people)

"and weighing the probability of encryption against the probability of forceful self-defense,"

This I don't understand. I'm quite sure no suspect will try to fire at policeman with their Truecrypt USB drive.

"If for some reason there's reason to believe that the person is working next to both a loaded gun and an encrypted disk"

The 'and' between 'loaded gun' and 'an encrypted disk' should be an 'or'. Just one of the two is enough to warrant force.

Assuming that, well that's already the trade off being made. I just think you underestimate the amount of criminals using encryption. Even if only 5% of them do use it, that already makes it likely enough that any random one (because remember, before you enter you don't know what you will find) will use it to warrant force. QED.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#142

Post by sesqu »

roel_v wrote: post #141
sesqu wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, around here the cops know who has guns, as well as whether they're known to be a bit crazy. The police are also usually not treated like an invading army, so it's apples for oranges. I'd at least suggest holstering the weapons until they're needed and weighing the probability of encryption against the probability of forceful self-defense, case by case. If for some reason there's reason to believe that the perso…

"The police are also usually not treated like an invading army" (emphasis mine) This shows you don't understand the point (I'm not so much talking about this specific case or even raids on computer criminals anymore, rather in general). The exact point is that sometimes it does happen, but you don't know why. That's why you need to treat every opportunity, no matter how minute, as more dangerous than it actually is,…

I considered not using that word (usually), but decided I don't know enough to remove all weaseling. I didn't intend it to be taken as representative of my understanding. However, from your exposition, it seems fitting.

I'm firmly against all examples of zero tolerance. From your example, I think 500 disturbances of peace and destructions of property is far worse than one realization of a work hazard. I would draw the line at perhaps 10. There used to be a principle that it is better to let 10 guilty men walk than convict a single innocent - do you not subscribe to this either?

I'll clarify what I meant with the juxtaposition of encryption and forceful resistance: encryption is a justification for occupied searches, since you need to confiscate the electronics while they are unlocked. I don't know if that's actually done, though, since it's my understanding that the electronics are routinely removed from the premises and disconnected in the process. This scenario does not warrant the use of any force.

Armed defense is a justification for surprise arrests, since you need to arrest the suspect when they're not in defensive positions. A good time to do this is during ingress or egress. This situation does not warrant the use of devastating force.

The only reason to assault a dwelling with shock tactics would be to capture armed resistance in the act of handling evidence. Perhaps that's an actual worry for the FBI, who seem to assume all of their suspects are paramilitary, but I don't think it's a reasonable worry in the majority of cases, even the ones handled by the FBI.

I hope you now understand better where we disagree.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#143

Post by ergo98 »

JoachimSchipper wrote: post #133
InclinedPlane wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sit-ins are inherently sacrificial acts. The purpose of a sit-in is to stage a non-violent, disruptive protest which forces a response, typically being arrested, from a business owner or government. If there is no response because, for example, the business owner is too shamed to respond then either the disruption continues until the protesters demands are met or the protesters eventually give up. If there is a respo…

If you're smart and know that using your home PC for DDoS attacks is likely to result in trouble for you, a DDoS attack is no less sacrificial than a sit-in (in fact, due to the propaganda against "hackers", you're quite likely to get a harsher sentence). Also, where do you get the idea that non-violent protest doesn't hurt the people being protested against? If someone chains himself to a tree about to be cut down,…

I suspect that most of these people had no realization that reality would come and bust in their door. There remains a widespread illusion of anonymity and invulnerability when it comes to the tubes.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#145

Post by ergo98 »

jtchang wrote: post #19

My tax dollars are going to this. I feel robbed.

DDOS attacks are attacks on the very fabric of the internet. If you believe in the internet, you will not support those sorts of activities. This has a very real ramification for much of the subject matter of HN: The investment community needs to know that any iCompany can't be destroyed by some teenagers with a downloaded tool.

Recall that the last freedom exercise was to try to suppress Gene Simmons' right to free speech (however stupid his opinions might be) by a DDOS on his servers, with all of the collateral damage that entails.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#146

Post by tptacek »

dspeyer wrote: post #99
tptacek wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely absurd logic. DDoS attacks can and do cause measurable hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage. You had to have known that. You just choose to overlook the potential damage here because you support the cause.

Damage? What are you talking about? The routers don't literally catch fire. It disrupts services while the attack is active. A sit in is the correct metaphor.

Your honor! I object! Sure, I used the man's credit card without asking him! But he didn't literally catch fire! Damages? Why, he looks fine to me!

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#147

Post by Dylan16807 »

roel_v wrote: post #141
sesqu wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, around here the cops know who has guns, as well as whether they're known to be a bit crazy. The police are also usually not treated like an invading army, so it's apples for oranges. I'd at least suggest holstering the weapons until they're needed and weighing the probability of encryption against the probability of forceful self-defense, case by case. If for some reason there's reason to believe that the perso…

"The police are also usually not treated like an invading army" (emphasis mine) This shows you don't understand the point (I'm not so much talking about this specific case or even raids on computer criminals anymore, rather in general). The exact point is that sometimes it does happen, but you don't know why. That's why you need to treat every opportunity, no matter how minute, as more dangerous than it actually is,…

You're neglecting the danger caused by starting the raid in an escalated state.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#148

Post by steveklabnik »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #117
steveklabnik wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> such a contention is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Could you expand on this a bit? I actually believe that it's very close to the same thing, but I'd like to hear your reasoning. > Moreover, sit-ins are not legal either. You are correct. This is why it's called 'civil disobedience.' Sometimes, the best way to change a law is to break it. And break it publicly. It doesn't mean that you'll be spared a sentence…

Sit-ins are inherently sacrificial acts. The purpose of a sit-in is to stage a non-violent, disruptive protest which forces a response, typically being arrested, from a business owner or government. If there is no response because, for example, the business owner is too shamed to respond then either the disruption continues until the protesters demands are met or the protesters eventually give up. If there is a respo…

My conception of a sit-in has no relation with anonymity. The important portion of a sit-in is the occupation of space. The space is occupied to disrupt the normal flow of activity, so as to draw attention to a cause. I'm not sure how a protest being anonymous goes from violent to non-violent.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if Anon once DDoS'd minecraft.net. Operation Avenge Assange had its motivations declared quite explicitly: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Avenge_As...

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#149

Post by steveklabnik »

roel_v wrote: post #130
steveklabnik wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what makes it so impactful: its important enough that the consequences are irrelevant. It seems that you place a much higher importance on following the law than I do; I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you seemingly imply that that's a bad thing. Generally, following the law is good, but I hold no illusions that there's any connection between legality and morality.

"Generally, following the law is good, but I hold no illusions that there's any connection between legality and morality." Not to nitpick but I hope you meant for this to be hyperbole. In general , the law (at least part of it, the parts that aren't purely for practical reasons such as 'everybody should drive on the right side of the road') purports to embody whatever is thought of as 'the moral common ground' of the…

The key word there is 'purports.' I don't think that it actually does.

Also, I think that prohibitions and punishment say that they have a moral component, but that's largely due to making it easier for the populace to swallow. Opiate of the masses and all of that.

This doesn't mean that I think that there should be a world without rules, either. But these (at least America's) set of rules certainly don't come anywhere close to representing my morality or ethics.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#150

Post by steveklabnik »

gojomo wrote: post #114
steveklabnik wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what makes it so impactful: its important enough that the consequences are irrelevant. It seems that you place a much higher importance on following the law than I do; I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you seemingly imply that that's a bad thing. Generally, following the law is good, but I hold no illusions that there's any connection between legality and morality.

I think the rules against sabotaging others' commerce are good rules; a moral person would follow them even if they weren't written down. Also, even if you get the desired headlines and attention, I don't think you score points against bad rules by violating good rules. I believe more people concluded Anonymous/Wikileaks are vandals and bullies from hearing about (or being affected by) the DDoS attacks, than came aro…

> I think the rules against sabotaging others' commerce are good rules; a moral person would follow them even if they weren't written down.

I agree with your statement on its face, but there are certain times when it's okay to break the rules. Sometimes you have to do bad things to achieve good ends. No action is ever white or black, there are only shades of gray.

> If the 'sit-in' directly blocked the objectionable activity, a different analysis might apply.

They did disrupt. Maybe not as much as Anon would have liked, but they did.

Post reply on HN