This would be civil disobedience if they turned themselves in after committing what is considered a crime, to point out the unjustness of the law that makes it a crime. I didn't see Anonymous turn themselves in, did you?
This would be civil disobedience if they turned themselves in That's not, actually, a requirement of civil disobedience, and never has been, historically. For instance, millions broke the salt laws of India, but only 80,000 were arrested, and I can guarantee that the remainder did not voluntarily turn themselves in.
I stand corrected - I always assumed CD at least required you publicly announcing that you broke the law.
I'm not necessarily against feds going after DDOSers, but this is a shameful, politically motivated retribution. The "crime" here is not sending packets to DDOS PayPal but criticizing the goverment. The goverment is in turn showing they're not afraid to destroy lives of those who do. DDOS attacks are pretty much an epidemic on the internet. I'm pretty sure every major company like Google or Microsoft or Amazon has to…
After reading the article, it appears as though Anon were lured into the attack by PayPal. Then it sounds like the Feds already had all their stuff in place to collect the data while the attacks were happening.
The newly released affidavit was offered in support of a search warrant for the home of an Arlington, Texas couple and their son, who were among the July 19 targets, and have not been charged. The house was the source of 3,678 packets in about two-and-a-half hours starting December 8. So they're going to arrest a kid for sending an average on one packet every two seconds, over the period of two-and-a-half hours?
Is that even the rate of putting something on the F5 key on the webpage and letting the browser refresh?
The newly released affidavit was offered in support of a search warrant for the home of an Arlington, Texas couple and their son, who were among the July 19 targets, and have not been charged. The house was the source of 3,678 packets in about two-and-a-half hours starting December 8. So they're going to arrest a kid for sending an average on one packet every two seconds, over the period of two-and-a-half hours?
the point isn't the amount, the point is participation. Such a low intensive, no damage, DoS is akin to a peaceful protest in front of the company store, only virtual.
Any real protest in front of a real store is in turn also kind of DoS - thinking about that i wonder whether real protests can be more successfully prosecuted on such a grounds, especially that stretching DoS to an "act of domestic terrorism" is very acceptable today.
How exactly does one take an IP number and point a finger to the person who caused that transmission? If a computer can be hijacked by an undetectable virus from a Sony cd, can we really say for sure who caused any transmission from a PC? What if you framed your neighbors unsecured wifi? Or target someone's home? It's like a modern day witch hunt!
How exactly does one take an IP number and point a finger to the person who caused that transmission? Good thing that's not what the FBI is doing. can we really say for sure who caused any transmission from a PC? If a computer is seized from a teenager's bedroom and it has LOIC installed and it isn't malware-infested...
If a computer is seized from a teenager's bedroom and it has LOIC installed and it isn't malware-infested...
Are you not bothered by the notion of a warrant being issued for search of your home and seizure of your computers based on nothing but an IP address?
I'm extremely bothered by that, personally, because I know enough about networks to know how very shaky that "evidence" of identity is.
The newly released affidavit was offered in support of a search warrant for the home of an Arlington, Texas couple and their son, who were among the July 19 targets, and have not been charged. The house was the source of 3,678 packets in about two-and-a-half hours starting December 8. So they're going to arrest a kid for sending an average on one packet every two seconds, over the period of two-and-a-half hours?
> So they're going to arrest a kid for sending an average on one packet every two seconds, over the period of two-and-a-half hours?
As a general principle, if it is illegal for one person to perpetrate an act against a victim, I don't see how it should not be illegal for a large group of people to perpetrate the same act, even though the individual contribution of each member of the large group might be small enough that if he were alone it would not rise to the level of a crime.
To do it any other way would open up a hell of a big loophole, it seems to me.
I'm not necessarily against feds going after DDOSers, but this is a shameful, politically motivated retribution. The "crime" here is not sending packets to DDOS PayPal but criticizing the goverment. The goverment is in turn showing they're not afraid to destroy lives of those who do. DDOS attacks are pretty much an epidemic on the internet. I'm pretty sure every major company like Google or Microsoft or Amazon has to…
After reading the article, it appears as though Anon were lured into the attack by PayPal. Then it sounds like the Feds already had all their stuff in place to collect the data while the attacks were happening.
After reading the article and most of the affidavit, it sounds like you completely made up both of these claims.
The newly released affidavit was offered in support of a search warrant for the home of an Arlington, Texas couple and their son, who were among the July 19 targets, and have not been charged. The house was the source of 3,678 packets in about two-and-a-half hours starting December 8. So they're going to arrest a kid for sending an average on one packet every two seconds, over the period of two-and-a-half hours?
> So they're going to arrest a kid for sending an average on one packet every two seconds, over the period of two-and-a-half hours? As a general principle, if it is illegal for one person to perpetrate an act against a victim, I don't see how it should not be illegal for a large group of people to perpetrate the same act, even though the individual contribution of each member of the large group might be small enough…
It's an interesting question, though. If 1000 people tell one person that they don't like them, and the person commits suicide, then it's reasonable to claim that the group drove them to do it. However, do you prosecute an individual who merely tells someone, "I don't like you?" On an individual basis, it's a weak case. I'm not sure how the law deals with this, or even if there exists any legal principles dealing with how to prosecute actions that are, by themselves, harmless and not illegal (running LOIC may signal an intent to block access, but in the same way that gunning a Pinto on the highway may signal an intent to speed, you're unlikely to be able to break the law).
How exactly does one take an IP number and point a finger to the person who caused that transmission? Good thing that's not what the FBI is doing. can we really say for sure who caused any transmission from a PC? If a computer is seized from a teenager's bedroom and it has LOIC installed and it isn't malware-infested...
If a computer is seized from a teenager's bedroom and it has LOIC installed and it isn't malware-infested... Are you not bothered by the notion of a warrant being issued for search of your home and seizure of your computers based on nothing but an IP address ? I'm extremely bothered by that, personally, because I know enough about networks to know how very shaky that "evidence" of identity is.
I'm more bothered by the idea that the architecture of the Internet would be turned into a "get out of jail free" card. Unless your attacker is completely incompetent, the only evidence you'll have is an IP address; if you can't use that then you have nothing.
The newly released affidavit was offered in support of a search warrant for the home of an Arlington, Texas couple and their son, who were among the July 19 targets, and have not been charged. The house was the source of 3,678 packets in about two-and-a-half hours starting December 8. So they're going to arrest a kid for sending an average on one packet every two seconds, over the period of two-and-a-half hours?
Yes. And ruin his life.
How to launch a worse attack than these people did:
1) Browse to website.
2) Place heavy object on F5 key.