It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Journalism student faces 15 years for alleged ‘Anonymous’ hacktivism

page: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by quango
 




Should any DDOS be acceptable and legal, or does there need to be a good reason? Who defines activism vs harassment?


It can be a very destructive tool, more so if it is sustained in the long term and cause significant disruptions to business communications. DDOS is a digital weapon and is generally considered as an illegal tool. There is a legal argument about the right to self defence. The concept of cyber wars is a big one with a lot of resources going into both attack and defence strategies globally. As we can use a gun when in an immediate life threatening situation, can we use a digital weapon when our right to digital life is at risk?

With wikileaks having its right to digital life attacked through denial of economic transfers is there the right for someone to respond in defence of this threat? While DDOS does not fulfil the loss of capacity from the banks denying access, it did enhance the public exposure to how wikileaks was being targeted and offered public support through its difficulties.

As for the difference between activism and harassment, activism is generally a short term statement to make a point with harassment generally a more long term campaign designed to inflict damage.



Can the authorities use DDOS to knock independent, free-thinking sites temporarily offline, or is this a tactic only the people can use? Why?


Technically they could but I am not aware of any cases. Generally there are other methods like ordering a shut down or confiscation of equipment if the website is hosted within the nation or another nation with established treaties for this. With wikileaks the Domain Name Servers where changed, this resulted in the web address not being able to find the host or web site. You could still access the website over the internet if you know its IP address, but not many people do know this as this is what the Domain Name Servers do. I would expect DDOS to be more of a military than a government tool though.




posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
People should twitter this story to every hacker group they are in contact with.

The more people who know, the more likely some action may be taken to punish those in power.

Not suggesting anything illegal of course, but knowledge is power.




posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


There is another form of DDOS attack that the authorities cannot touch and that is a mass email campaign. If thousands or even millions of people just send one email to and organisation, there communication systems are hit very hard just through the flood of communication. The organisation is generally unable to effectively respond during such campaigns as their IT systems are stressed, but it does send a clear message of just what the public opinion is. It does take a lot of strong public support to undertake such campaigns.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
bla...she'll never sit in jail for that...its just fearmongering...she needs a good lawyer...maybe her pc was infected and so it wasnt her doing the ddos....



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Although I support Anon in more ways than one, which I won't get into, I would like to say something about the nature of distributed dos attacks. Some of you are wondering how monetary damage can be caused during an attack, and it is simple: the website will lose money from advertising, as well as fees imposed on any visitors/users. This may not seem like much, but when you are talking about a site like Paypal, it is a lot of money.

With that said, the people who participate in these ddos attacks are obviously not hackers, because if they were they would know how to protect themselves during one of these attacks. There are guides available on this sort of thing, and more advanced guides for those who know where to look.

Whether you like Anon or not, I can say with relative certainty that there will be no dismembering the group, since I know for a fact that on average at least two experienced hackers, or more, and many more less experienced activists join the group everyday. That may not seem like much, but it really is.

The statement was released that Anon was building an army...and they really are. The FBI is still chasing Anons' tails, as they are just now prosecuting for the Paypal ddos. I predict that the less experienced activists will gain the necessary experience from the guides that Anon is releasing, as well as from visiting the Anon irc and asking questions, and also from places like Anon+. Even the hackers who defaced Anon+ are willing to support the group, although you won't read that in any article. Things are really getting big, and with that, the FBI will be cracking down on people they suspect are hacking.

My advice to everyone is this: stay away from the hacking side of activism if you do not really understand what you are doing, or are not prepared to face the consequences, and instead keep spreading the word using various social media outlets...At least until that too becomes illegal.

Although many would like to help, even some who want to avenge the arrests of people like in the OP, I don't advise risking your freedom until there is no other way. Once all avenues are exhausted, then one can think about other avenues of action...but that point isn't here just yet. Those who do not heed this advice...be careful and educate yourself, because I don't want to see any more people go to jail for breaking the law, even though the cause is just.

So why do I support the people who still take the illegal route? Because they are paving the way for what is to come.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Anonymous is on the fringe of the fringe. A civilized society is not possible when fanatics and fringe elements try to force their views on the rest of society which is what Anonymous is trying to do.

The members of Anonymous speak for nobody except themselves and their tiny group of Groupies.

The word "Denial" is the key here. That this tiny group of not so anonymous activists, who were not elected or endorsed by anyone but themselves are taking it upon themselves to "deny" anything to anyone is the problem.

When you effectively shut down a service that millions of businesses rely on, you do great harm. There is a lot of collateral damage to innocent people.

A site I rely on for my work was hit with an attack for no reason anyone can figure out. All the site does is provide software and files for a very specific subset of people. It shut them down for days while they made changes to seal up their security vulnerabilities. They lost days of sales and I personally was unable to meet a deadline because I could not access a file I needed.

I rank this right up their with the so called Anarchists who talk a good talk, but when they riot what do they do; they vandalize peoples property who have nothing to do with what they are rioting for. Anonymous is the same. Anonymous is not fooling anyone with a functional mind.



edit on 7/26/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 





TextAnonymous is on the fringe of the fringe. A civilized society is not possible when fanatics and fringe elements try to force their views on the rest of society which is what Anonymous is trying to do.


and what do you think anon are trying to do..............



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


If they can't secure their site from DDOS then they should get a better IT guy.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
She knew what could happen if she got caught and she chose to do it anyway. No sympathy for her at all.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

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.




I just wanted to touch on this point...


Using the law to make an "example" out of someone is a VERY dangerous precedent that completely violates the rights of the individual being made an "example" of.

DDOS is only very small crime, equivalent (at the individual level) to making a prank call or jaywalking. Now they are trying to throw these otherwise innocent teenagers in jail over this, which is only going to lead them down a life of crime. This is the same tactic used to punish people who illegally download files and look at the backlash it has caused against the music industry.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by kwakakev
 


you are right it is cyber activism not hacking and the best way of looking at it is as civil disobendiance. The laws have a long way to catch up in this case....


That's the propaganda that suckers the sheep in for cannon fodder. Anonymous admits as much and doesn't care one lick for these stooges who ddos for them.

This is like the driver of the getaway car in a holdup that involves a handgun, the driver goes up the river on felony charges along with the holdup guy with the gun.
Now it is probable in a lot of cases that the robber may have told the driver not to worry, you aren't robbing anyone so they can't do anything to you, he just needs someone to drive.
He or she can cry all day that they didn't rob anybody or have a gun, but it will do no good, they're going to jail as an accomplice.

Now what these sheeple wannabe hackers do is even worse than the driver, they cause a diversion so that the hardcore criminals can perpetrate their acts, making them full accomplices.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
no i bet she dosent regret it anon understands the risk they take bye doing this and trust me anon wont stand for this actually anon has a group of lawyers



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


How can you equate a harmless ddos attack to an armed bank robbery get away driver?
It looks to me the FBI are trying to get the attention of Annon, makes it easier to catch them if they are active.
Oh if your out of toilet paper try crumpling up an old newspaper, tin foils going to hurt!
brice
edit on 26-7-2011 by brice because: To remove excess edits



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by brice
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


How can you equate a harmless ddos attack to an armed bank robbery get away driver?
It looks to me the FBI are trying to get the attention of Annon, makes it easier to catch them if they are active.
Oh if your out of toilet paper try crumpling up an old newspaper, tin foils going to hurt!
brice
edit on 26-7-2011 by brice because: To remove excess edits


Easy, because in the proper circumstances driving a car can be harmless also. Purposely driving it by the cop station at a high rate of speed to get all the cops to chase you so your bosses can go rob the local bank at the same time is not. Getting caught and having your association to the thieves proven will make it extremely hard for anyone to believe you were just out for a ride to protest the speed limit.

Accomplices are the correct term for these willing ddos sheeple. There are laws on the books against being an accomplice to theft.

Nobody is going to feel sorry for these accomplices when they get the book thrown at them, especially at the exponential rate these hackers are making enemies out of the general public by robbing their financial information left and right ie banks, credit cards, paypal, their kids playstation network accounts, their relatives millitary email account information etc. They put two and two together and see that stolen ID's are a big criminal enterprise.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Still wrong.
It would be better likened to tea party members protesting requiring police attention not knowing that other members of the tea party are committing a violent crime in the name of the group.

If the person driving by the police station had no idea that people were robbing a bank you couldn't really call it guilty by association.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
When I heard Paypal had been taken offline, I opened my browser, typed in the address and sure enough it was down. Same with MasterCard and Sony. As I'm sure every journalist working on the story did, as I'm sure everyone who read the story did. All of those additional, perfectly legitimate 'hits' also contributed to the site remaining down. If I have one or twenty tabs open with the same site and it goes offline, will I now be accused of 'attacking' that website? You'd better get a much bigger prison to lock up the entire online community though.

You can't allow this to happen, there's no crime committed here whether or not the intent was to shut down the website, I could just as easily prevent access to an offline business, but that of course would provoke a more immediate reaction from the owners - nothing they can do about a Ddos other than suck it up and ride it out.

I still think anonymous are a government fabrication however.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Still wrong.
It would be better likened to tea party members protesting requiring police attention not knowing that other members of the tea party are committing a violent crime in the name of the group.

If the person driving by the police station had no idea that people were robbing a bank you couldn't really call it guilty by association.


Oh it is a clear cut case of accomplice to a crime, these willing fall guys get caught because they are stupid on the internet, their association would be simple to prove. Just check their ISP, then all online history. Their own words will most likely seal their fate. Rookie prosecuters could handle these cases with 6th grade helpers.

The sheeple ddos'ers are willingly disrupting a criminal investigation as a secondary charge. Any angle you look at it, the general public will be laughing when they are in jail while you are still trying to argue ddos'ing for anonymous is a harmless sit in.




top topics



 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join