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

61–70 of 168 posts

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#61

Post by burgerbrain »

mquander wrote: post #47
Jach wrote: post #44

I'm concerned about the knock-down approach by the FBI. Say I live in a state which allows one to kill home intruders on sight, could I not legally set up an alarm system that sprays some bullets in the direction of the door if it's opened without being disabled? By knocking I can disable it and let them in instead of having a few dead FBI agents on my doorstep.

Of course you couldn't legally set that up, are you insane? On what planet would that be justifiable? Even in Texas, you need to demonstrate a reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger of being robbed or attacked before you are permitted to use deadly force on an intruder in your home.

Somebody bursting down your door in the middle of the night isn't "reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger of being robbed or attacked"? What world do you live in?

Ignore the silly mechanism described, and imagine you're sleeping in bed with your wife at 3am, and are a completely law abiding citizen as far as you are concerned. Why would you possibly have any reason to believe that the people violently breaking down your door and and yelling have good intentions?

This isn't hypothetical, this kind of shit has actually happened. Both innocent people, and cops, have died in these sort of situations.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#62

Post by w1ntermute »

cagenut wrote: post #51
monochromatic wrote: post #10

What's the justification for no-knock raids here?

Whole drive encryption. I've seen docu-drama's where they actually break in when they know the suspect has gotten up to go the the bathroom/kitchen so that he can't reboot the computer. Then, like all things with a shred of reasonableness too them, they become an awesome "check this box every single time" way of doing business for the guys who get their thrills kicking in doors.

> I've seen docu-drama's where they actually break in when they know the suspect has gotten up to go the the bathroom/kitchen so that he can't reboot the computer.

Any specific examples? I'm interested in watching them.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#63

Post by steveklabnik »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #45
lukeschlather wrote: post #33

>The FBI yesterday reminded the public that "facilitating or conducting a DDoS attack is illegal, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, as well as exposing participants to significant civil liability." What exactly is the relevant statute? As the other Ars article on the subject states, it's the digital equivalent of a sit-in.

It's silly to pretend that a DDoS attack is the same as a sit-in, such a contention is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Moreover, sit-ins are not legal either. If you choose to attempt to disrupt a place of business and you refuse to leave private property when asked to do so you can be arrested.

> 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, but the idea is that the sentence is worth it.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#64

Post by pyre »

burgerbrain wrote: post #61
mquander wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you couldn't legally set that up, are you insane? On what planet would that be justifiable? Even in Texas, you need to demonstrate a reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger of being robbed or attacked before you are permitted to use deadly force on an intruder in your home.

Somebody bursting down your door in the middle of the night isn't "reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger of being robbed or attacked"? What world do you live in? Ignore the silly mechanism described, and imagine you're sleeping in bed with your wife at 3am, and are a completely law abiding citizen as far as you are concerned. Why would you possibly have any reason to believe that the people violently bre…

You're supposed to trust them because they yell "police" or "fbi" as they burst in. Sure an intruder could yell the same thing, but it's the same idea as their badges. Easily faked, but they just have harsh penalties for impersonating law enforcement.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#65

Post by wmf »

steveklabnik wrote: post #63
InclinedPlane wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's silly to pretend that a DDoS attack is the same as a sit-in, such a contention is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Moreover, sit-ins are not legal either. If you choose to attempt to disrupt a place of business and you refuse to leave private property when asked to do so you can be arrested.

> 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…

The real question is whether Anonymous's legion of teenage trolls understands what civil disobedience means (i.e. that you are supposed to get arrested).

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#66

Post by fleitz »

forensic wrote: post #26
damoncali wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant, does anyone investigate them end-to-end, and not just in their own country? I find it hard to believe that the FBI interacts well with law enforcement in, say, Poland.

well the RCMP and the FBI work together very closely, for one. An American FBI agent can get more done in Canada through RCMP connections than a rich and powerful Canadian can. RCMP is the Canadian FBI by the way.

Yes, and vice versa, lets say the RCMP needs someone sent to Syria for 'questioning', then they'd phone the FBI and tip them off that such a person is coming to the US. And the FBI would promptly send them to Syria for 'questioning' of course also ignoring their citizenship and duty to deport people back to their country of citizenship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#67

Post by wmf »

borism wrote: post #58
forensic wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their goal is to deter the behaviour by making examples of out people. I think they achieved this.

usually making examples out of people implies naming them by name

They will be named if/when anything goes to trial.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#68

Post by ugh »

tptacek wrote: post #8
borism wrote: post #3

Let me get this straight. All this fanfare, and all they got was a bunch of teenagers (who most likely are not even legally liable) + their moms?

What does being a teenager have to do with being liable? If they're criminally liable, they'll be tried by a juvenile court. If they're civilly liable, their parents will face civil suits.

Are parents civilly liable in the US when their kids do something? That’s under most circumstances not the case in Germany. It is possible but the barriers are extremely high.

A thirteen year-old downloading software off the internet and using it is age appropriate (i.e. it is not reasonable for parents of teenagers to check everything they are doing online), the parents would consequently not be civilly liable in Germany.

(This is my personal extrapolation of the respective German laws. The case I know about is the following: Two twelve year-olds walk home unaccompanied from a nearby playground and decide on their way home to slash the tires of a neighbor’s car with a small swiss army knife one of the kids received as a present. The parents aren’t civilly liable in this case because it is age appropriate for twelve year-olds to walk to a nearby playground and back alone and it is also appropriate for one of the kids to own a small swiss army knife. There is nothing reasonable the parents could have done to directly prevent the incident.)

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#69

Post by wmf »

burgerbrain wrote: post #61
mquander wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you couldn't legally set that up, are you insane? On what planet would that be justifiable? Even in Texas, you need to demonstrate a reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger of being robbed or attacked before you are permitted to use deadly force on an intruder in your home.

Somebody bursting down your door in the middle of the night isn't "reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger of being robbed or attacked"? What world do you live in? Ignore the silly mechanism described, and imagine you're sleeping in bed with your wife at 3am, and are a completely law abiding citizen as far as you are concerned. Why would you possibly have any reason to believe that the people violently bre…

No-knock warrants (often to the wrong address) are now so common that if I heard my door being broken down I would assume it's the police. The castle doctrine seems like a dead letter at this point. A sad commentary on something, but I'm not sure exactly what.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#70

Post by fleitz »

Jach wrote: post #44

I'm concerned about the knock-down approach by the FBI. Say I live in a state which allows one to kill home intruders on sight, could I not legally set up an alarm system that sprays some bullets in the direction of the door if it's opened without being disabled? By knocking I can disable it and let them in instead of having a few dead FBI agents on my doorstep.

Booby traps are a definite no, as for what would happen in a plausible scenario, read this:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/31/drug-raid-gone-bad

Post reply on HN