It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A journalism student at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas who used the online alias "No" and "MMMM" faces 15 years in prison and $500,000 in fines if she is convicted of hacking charges related to the group "Anonymous." The Rebel Yell reported that the FBI arrested 20-year-old Mercedes Renee Haefer last week for allegedly participating in distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against PayPal’s website.
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
They intend to make an example out of all that have been arrested. If convicted, the maximum sentence will be likely. These kids are pawns in a game much bigger than them, anonymous uses them, and they stupidly play along.
You know what they say... If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Originally posted by Scaledown
Poor girl and sucks to be caught but she should have understood the game she was playing and at least masked her IP or VPN'd via a VPN via a VPN.
Sorry, that pretty, innocent description of the crime and the cute picture doesn't sway me. In your example, the correct charge would be breaking and entering whether anything was taken from the bank or not. I'm afraid to tell you that going sightseeing into a place where you have no official business or invitation for addmission can be a crime. It tends to be called trespassing in the solid world. (And you know, if somebody can go into off-limit areas of any business and agency and takes camera images (not screen shots) of the data, how can anybody claim that nothing was stolen?)
Poor girl and sucks to be caught but she should have understood the game she was playing and at least masked her IP or VPN'd via a VPN via a VPN. I read that majority of the others caught had no involvement and just had open wireless, seems like anon could never be stopped if you have a bunch of war drivers going around ddos'ing.
The constitution state about the right of protest as „the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“ In the past that has always meant you must uproot yourself and go either across town or more likely across the nation to reach these pivotal spots where people meet and show their distress as a collective. But, something new has happened. With the recent revenge by Anonymous for the repression of Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange on Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, etc. etc. etc. people have come across something very interesting. They use a tool called LOIC that uses Distributed Denial of Service attacks to shut down access to websites they believe are taking away the right of information by these companies or websites. First you must understand this one fact, DDoS attacks in no way harm computers, damage the server, harm a person, remove a persons rights, or cause a disturbance of the peace. All they do is take up the bandwidth and restrict peoples ability to use the services provided by a website. In a way it acts very similarly to the sit ins from the civil rights movement, these people both just occupy the space to make a point and cause no physical damage to anyone or thing. So the fact that they do not cause damage or loss of rights would to most people be classified as peaceful protest against a government or group that has committed something that is ethically in question. It is also important to remember that this wasn’t just a small group of people, there were on the upwards of 30,000 downloads of LOIC.
Originally posted by quango
A couple questions:
Should any DDOS be acceptable and legal, or does there need to be a good reason? Who defines activism vs harassment?
Can the authorities use DDOS to knock independent, free-thinking sites temporarily offline, or is this a tactic only the people can use? Why?