Skip to main content

View Diary: 13 Anonymous Members Indicted On Federal Charges (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Turnabout being fair play? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, Tool

    The copyright-holder lobbyist groups have used DDoS attacks against file-sharing sites. So, they, the "legal" entities, should have capabilities the "illegal"
    entities don't? Fairness not being part of the equation at all, then.

    Atheistic Determinist and Contemplative Contrarian.

    by ShockandAwed on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 12:50:36 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's a deflection. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, sebastianguy99, erush1345
      The copyright-holder lobbyist groups have used DDoS attacks against file-sharing sites.
      The news article you posted highlighted several reasons for Anonymous DDoS attacks—refusing to process payments for WikiLeaks, issuing an arrest warrant for alleged sexual assault, etc.—that had absolutely nothing to do with "copyright-holder lobbyist groups" or any kind of DDoS attacks on file-sharing sites.

      What do you think the response by the authorities to Anonymous's DDoS attacks should have been?

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 12:59:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, Tool

        From diary:

        Members of Anonymous launched what they called Operation Payback, an attack on the Motion Picture Industry of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, the British Phonographic Industry and others. The attacks were retaliation against the discontinuation of “The Pirate Bay,” a Sweden-based file sharing website devoted to the illegal downloading of copyrighted material.
        Further:
        Operation Payback started as retaliation to distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks on torrent sites; piracy proponents then decided to launch DDoS attacks on piracy opponents. The initial reaction snowballed into a wave of attacks on major pro-copyright and anti-piracy organizations, law firms, and individuals.
        Torrent sites have been attacked repeatedly by pro-copyright groups. Any search returns links dating back several years.

        Atheistic Determinist and Contemplative Contrarian.

        by ShockandAwed on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 01:33:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You completely avoided my point. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shifty18, erush1345, Hey338Too

          I quote from the paragraph immediately before the first excerpt you posted:

          Anonymous focused on websites that were either critical of WikiLeaks or had refused to process payments for WikiLeaks, among them MasterCard and Visa. The targets even included the Swedish prosecutor’s office, in connection with arrest warrants for sexual crimes issued for Assange.
          The sites named in that paragraph had absolutely nothing to do with (alleged) DDoS attacks against pirate websites.

          Thus, even if one accepts the validity of retaliatory attacks against the organizations that (allegedly) engaged in DDoS attacks against pirate websites (which I don't concede, by the way), why should those alleged attacks be in any way relevant to the question of whether or not Anonymous was justified in attacking the sites listed above?

          And if the (alleged) DDoS attacks against pirate websites aren't part of the justification for attacking those non-related sites, then on what basis are you making the argument that Anonymous's attacks on those non-related sites is justified to the point that they are "cyber-freedom fighters" who are being unjustly prosecuted by legal authorities?

          Finally, you failed to answer my question in the previous comment: What exactly do you think the response by the authorities to Anonymous's DDoS attacks should have been?

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:15:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tool

            Whether or not you'd like to concede the point is relevant to reality. The attacks have been going on for years regardless of the locality and quantum coherence of the electrons in your brain matter.

            You position is clearly opposed to the black bloc tactics of Anonymous. You either believe it is just to throw the rock at the tank or your don't; There are no rocks in cyberspace. There are, however, attack tool suites. But, if someone hits you with a stick. you will hit them back.

            No one seemed to be complaining when Anonymous hacked, illegally, the computer networks of the Tunisian government and help to expose the corruption therein. Nor, was the left complaining when Anonymous called for Days if Protest that where answered around the world in a youthful revival of leftism. You cannot have it both ways. Either hacking is wrong regardless of the target or hacktivsim has an extralegal place in this world.

            Those with the power and influence have always controlled the laws and regulations in this country and others. Civil disobedience has always had a place in the movement and hacktivism is just that. That shall continue, regardless of your likelihood to concede it when the wavefuntion of your thought collapses.

            Atheistic Determinist and Contemplative Contrarian.

            by ShockandAwed on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:56:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Typo (0+ / 0-)
              Whether or not you'd like to concede the point is relevant to reality.
              Isn't.

              Moreover, you are attempting to extricate this one instance from the larger context of hacktivism and it is intellectually dishonest. Receiving punishment for doing what is right, standing up for the oppressed and abused, and, it should be noted, exactly what intelligence agencies do all the time, is wrong.

              If the establishment is out of control, then by what effective means do you suggest the people do about that? Should Julian Assange go to prison? Should Snowden? Should Manning? No. And neither should these cyber-freedom fighters.

              You asked what I thought should be done to them? My answer: The exact same thing done to the other side when they perform the exact same function for the copyright industry groups. Nothing. Silence. It is about equal justice for all; The sad joke of American society.

              But, that goes back to the fact that the groups in favor of the status quo have an institutional immunity from prosecution. While, the rest of America that speaks out(or acts up) lives in fear of the boot coming down on their necks.

              Atheistic Determinist and Contemplative Contrarian.

              by ShockandAwed on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:30:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So now it's the law of the jungle? (0+ / 0-)
                You asked what I thought should be done to them? My answer: The exact same thing done to the other side when they perform the exact same function for the copyright industry groups. Nothing. Silence.
                So you're saying that anyone should be able to engage in a DDoS attack on anyone else, on any pretext, without prosecution or punishment? Because that's essentially the position you're laying down here. Anonymous is accountable to nobody. There are no checks on their power, no balances that force them to act only in just ways.

                You are suggesting that such a lack of accountability continue, that Anonymous be treated as "cyber-freedom fighters" who are above any kind of law or morality save those they make for themselves. That is not the basis for any kind of civil society.

                Are all website owners now to live in fear of upsetting Anonymous, no matter on how slight a pretext, because they could decide to DDoS their site, or engage in "ruin life tactics" against them?

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:13:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Don't try to couch it in "civil disobedience." (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bill W
              You position is clearly opposed to the black bloc tactics of Anonymous.
              Well, you're right about that. I have never supported the violence of black bloc tactics, whether online or in the real world.
              There are, however, attack tool suites. But, if someone hits you with a stick. you will hit them back.
              So it's the law of the jungle now? Is that all you think that humanity is, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?

              You also are completely ignoring the fact that many of the people Anonymous attacked did not, in fact, hit them with a stick. Your "eye for an eye" construction might work for the organizations that (allegedly) engaged in DDoS attacks against pirate websites, but it does not work for the Swedish prosecutors who were doing nothing more than their jobs.

              You cannot have it both ways. Either hacking is wrong regardless of the target or hacktivsim has an extralegal place in this world.
              So you are saying that there are absolutely no qualitative differences of any kind between any two acts of hacking? All acts of "hacktivism" are the same, no matter their tactics, no matter their targets, no matter their purpose? If one accepts the hacking of oppressive regimes like that of Tunisia, one must also accept cyberattacks on a Swedish prosecutor who happens to issue a warrant for the arrest of someone the hackers support, or "ruin life tactics" used against people with absolutely no oversight and absolutely no accountability?

              That's certainly what it reads like—that there is no gray area. One must either accept each and every act of "hacktivism" as valid and justified, or vilify them all. If that is your position, it's a simplistic and childish one.

              Civil disobedience has always had a place in the movement and hacktivism is just that.
              If this were "civil disobedience," Anonymous would not be anonymous. They would follow the writings of Dr. King and engage in their acts of civil disobedience openly in the full light of day, with love, and freely accept the legal punishment for their acts as a means of bringing attention to the injustice being permitted by the law. Not one of their acts would be intended to result in the destruction or ruination of anyone's life, because that is completely counter to the spirit of nonviolent civil disobedience.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:09:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)

                Civil disobedience is marching up to the lunch counter and demanding to be served.  As opposed to sneaking up to the store in the middle of the night, gluing the locks, and running away.
                It's the difference between the SCLC and the Army of God.

    •  Do you have a link for the DDoS attacks by... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345

      ... LE or copyright holders against the "illegal" sites?  I saw something about Anonymous and an "anti-Anonymous" takedown of Pirate Bay, but nothing from LE or other "legal" entities.

      Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

      by Hey338Too on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 01:05:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, Hey338Too, CenPhx, Tool

        Anti-Piracy Boss Denies DoS Attacks, Torrent Site Refutes Claim
        http://torrentfreak.com/...

        Anti-Piracy Outfit Threatens To DoS Uncooperative Torrent Sites
        http://torrentfreak.com/...

        Company Paid to Launch DoS Attacks Against Torrent Sites
        http://news.softpedia.com/...

        The Pirate Bay is latest site to be hit by DDoS attack
        http://www.computerweekly.com/...

        Movie industry 'launching cyber attacks' on pirate websites: Insider in denial-of-service confession
        http://www.techradar.com/...

        Atheistic Determinist and Contemplative Contrarian.

        by ShockandAwed on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 01:40:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting... (0+ / 0-)

          ... thanks for the info.  Noticed that three of the attacks you list were initiated by a single company (Aiplex) based in India trying to protect copyrighted Bollywood films.  I found the information in the first article very interesting where Aiplex references working with LE.

          Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

          by Hey338Too on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:00:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ... (0+ / 0-)

            It was a cursory search. I'm surprised when people don't know of a war being wage, regardless of its locale. It's nothing new, these attacks, admittedly, from both sides.

            Denial of service attacks are one of the few weapons readily available in the cyber realm, shock when they are used is unfounded. The Low Orbit Ion Cannon is open source; You could, technically, download it right now.

            Atheistic Determinist and Contemplative Contrarian.

            by ShockandAwed on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:12:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site