Griefers Assault Epileptics Via Message Board

An anonymous reader tips us to a story up at Wired reporting on what may be the first computer attack to inflict physical harm on victims. Last Saturday, griefers posted hundreds of bogus messages on the support forums of the nonprofit Epilepsy Foundation that used JavaScript and strobing GIFs to trigger migraines and seizures in users. For about 3% of the 50 million epileptics worldwide, flashing lights and colors can trigger seizures. "'I don't fall over and convulse, but it hurts,' says [an IT worker in Ohio]. 'I was on the phone when it happened, and I couldn't move and couldn't speak.' ... Circumstantial evidence suggests the attack was the work of members of Anonymous, an informal collective of griefers best known for their recent war on the Church of Scientology. The first flurry of posts on the epilepsy forum referenced the site EBaumsWorld, which is much hated by Anonymous. And forum members claim they found a message board thread — since deleted — planning the attack at 7chan.org, a group stronghold."

May or may not be the same Anons

[TheSpoom]

The members of Anonymous that did these hacks, if, in fact, that is who planned them, are likely not the same people protesting the Scientology organization.

One of the things about Anonymous that makes it different than most groups is that there are no real leaders and that, due to its very nature, nobody really knows anyone else in the group short of a few people that they might know outside the anonymous forums (this is because on a lot of the boards that Anon originated on, posters are forced to post anonymously, hence the name).

So it's really impossible to tell whether the people doing this are the same ones behind the masks at the protests.

Cruel and unusual

[Izabael_DaJinn]

I admit I usually think it is funny and appropriately rebellious when hackers set out to make a point. When they picked on the Scientologists it was funny. But this? Why this? It's like torturing your goldfish. Where is the challenge? What's the point?

Smear campaign by Scientology

[the_skywise]

count on it.

Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas?

[Naughty Bob]

I am no supporter of Anonymous, but isn't it convenient for the Scientologers that their new-found enemy should suddenly be suspected of a such certoonishly evil assault.

Two particular L. Ron Hubbard quotes are especially instructive in this regard-

We are slowly and carefully teaching the unholy a lesson. It is as follows: We are not a law enforcement agency. BUT we will become interested in the crimes of people who seek to stop us. If you oppose Scientology we promptly look up - and find and expose - your crimes. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone.

And-

Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown.

Certainly makes you wonder...

Also, Epileptics need to build themselves a Firefox plugin that'll detect any harmful behaviour, and block it Adblock-style. As the tech progresses this plugin could even be integrated into special sunglasses.... [hhgproject.org]

Of course

[PakProtector]

Obviously 'Anonymous' did this, because the Church of Scientology is so moral as to never stoop to breaking the law and framing others to remove a detractor.

Just how they would never try to drive a critic to suicide or cause the death of one of their own due to denial of basic medical treatment.

Sickening

[wwwgregcom]

As an epileptic, I find this absolutely sickening. Although I have a very mild form that is not photosensitive, this is a terrible act. For some, seizures do have a small risk of sudden death. When I was first diagnosed, I found these and similar message boards to be an absolutely invaluable resource in finding comfort and support for what is an often incurable and sometimes still stigmatized disease. For me, these forums will never feel like the same safe haven that they used to be.

Maybe...

[SCHecklerX]

boards for epileptic support shouldn't be written with javascript and image upload ability in the first place? Just a thought. I don't recall ever having strobing marching penises coming out of the monitor at me when I read usenet all those years...

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[dosius]

Some Anons say there is but one Anon.

I express solidarity with the Anons who fight the CoS, but I refuse to accept the Internet Hate Machine as being the same Anonymous. It is why I said before and I say again: There are TWO Anonymous.

-uso.

Re:Assholes

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

And so, the Scientology strategy of blaming their detractors through a blackbag job worked. They got you to believe this was by Anonymous.

Riiight...

[Zocalo]

And I am supposed to believe that this is Anonymous branching out from their protest against Scientology, and not some asshat member of Scientology trying to give Anonymous a bad name because...?

Anonymous has a beef with Scientology, and that is the sole extent of their agenda to date, so there is absolutely no reason for them to suddenly decide to launch an attack against epileptics. On the other hand there is every reason for Scientology to try and smear Anonymous in order to gain a more sympathetic ear in any future court actions against Anonymous. Given the track record Scientology has with the use of smear campaigns against people and organisations that try to stand up to them, I'd say it's pretty obvious what's really going on here.

Oh, and expect incoming pro-Scientology astroturfers in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Sickening

[taustin]

Given how trivial it was to conduct this attack, I have say that this forum didn't "used to be" a safe haven, it only seemed to be. Now, you have a clearer understanding of how the world really works.

I was wondering when this would happen

[mlwmohawk]

I have a relative in the Fire Alarm business and he tells me about the restrictions on strobe lights on long corridors, they have to flash simultaneously because the random flashes could cause a seizure during a fire. I thought, "wow, that's right. I wonder if they actualy thought about it before hand, or if they wrote the regulation based on a real incident."

Anyway, having that on my mind, I was looking at some of the more garish web sites and thought to myself, "I wonder if someone would construct a site that could trigger an epileptic seizure. Well, now we know.

As for "Anonymous" be the same anti-scientology "Anonymous," I would bet with 99% confidence that if there is such an accusation, it is scientology that did it. We know "why" anonymous is going after scientology, whether you agree or disagree, they have a cause. The epilepsy incident has nothing to do with that cause, and furthermore undermines it. It only makes sense that since it undermines the cause of "anonymous," it was likely done by scientology since they are the ones with the actual motive.

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[Wavebreak]

Not necessarily, however keep in mind that Anonymous is not a single organization but a collective of people who have different morals and values. Technically the Anonymous that griefs forums and social networking sites etc. shouldn't be considered the same entity as the Anonymous that's protesting scientology. Of course, this kind of thing is the downside of having no leadership or any kind of hierarchy whatsoever. In any case, I don't think it's fair to imply that these are the same people (altho in the interests of full disclosure, some might well be).

Re:Assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure accept they did it fast. But your not alone, and that's what scares me.

This is the 21 century, we shouldn't have mob justice or lynchings anymore.

This is indirectly a good thing...

[JustShootMe]

Not the actual "attack" itself, of course. But immediately, someone mentioned "anonymous" and everyone knew who they were, that they had a beef with scientology, and that scientology was possibly behind it to discredit them.

This shows that scientology is losing the PR war. They are completely out of their league when they can't actually identify and personally harass their detractors.

Re:I have a true Scientology story....

[Naughty Bob]

I was sorely tempted to post anonymously (not the flashing lights kind) when writing the post.

But bullies don't stop if you run away.

Re:Will the Authorities Take Notice Now?

[nevali]

Er, how about this: people who run websites need to be competent at it.

Many forum software packages have the ability to selectively or globally disable the upload animated GIFs. Given that they're forums for suffers of epilepsy, you'd think it'd be fairly high up on the list given that photosensitivity is a well-known symptom.

Similarly, a sticky forum post on "How to avoid a seizure when browsing the web" would be helpful. Links to Firefox plug-ins, and the like.

Re:This does not sound like Anon

[bersl2]

I would tend to agree.

I don't even think the hardcore /i/nsurgents would resort to something like this. I've started to look through a few of the places where this sort of this is discussed (the few I know about), and I haven't found anything. I think I might even leave them a note about someone doing this in the name of Anon, and how this undermines their long-term goals.

However, I would not completely rule out a rogue newfag or two who thinks this is funny.

Re:May or may not be the same Anons

[athdemo]

The fact that these Anonymous blamed it on ebaumsworld makes me think that almost beyond a shadow of a doubt it's the same people. Blaming ebaums is standard practice for the *chans. If you're trying to imply that the CoS is impersonating them to give them bad PR, I find it extremely unlikely they would've spent enough time researching 4chans raiding habits enough to know this, and even if they did, I doubt they would have done so. It wouldn't fit their purpose.

Re:Hackers?

[Blakey Rat]

The media never could grasp the correct usage of hackers (hackers versus crackers

Ok, that battle was lost literally 20 years ago, give it the hell up already. Seriously, you're only deluding yourself on this one.

hackers versus script kiddies

I've always assumed that script kiddies are a type of hacker who use only code/exploits written by other people instead of writing their own.

and confusing Anonymous for hackers isn't likely to help.

Yes, well, if they're going to be a group, maybe they should get a name that isn't completely moronic.

Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous has been romanticized as a morally driven vigilante group. It isn't. I have followed various /b/ and /i/ boards for a long time. /s/ brings me to the chans---I am a shameless porn addict. Image boards have been a major component of my daily life. I enjoy the depravity.

Anonymous taking on Scientology is more akin to the delight of knocking down a beehive, pissing on a crazy homeless person, or spray painting a swastika on a Jewish community center. I wouldn't do any of those things, but I can appreciate the humor in those actions when someone else does. Gather together thousands of anonymous people and their collective incongruent moral standards will make any atrocity possible. People like me encourage and feed the destruction. It doesn't matter if I appreciate everything, so long as I appreciate and encourage any one thing.

I don't feel guilt. I understand why I should, but if I am not the one making a prank phone call to the parents of some recently deceased child---I can disassociate enough from the act to sit back and laugh.

It is scary, real, and a major force on the rise.

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[ins0m]

You bet. This sounds exactly like a false-flag attack to discredit Anonymous. They have already struck back once [godlikeproductions.com] after Anonymous sandbagged their servers with DDoS and Gigaloader attacks. Co$ has been twisted up since the 2/10 and 3/15 peaceful demonstrations. Now that the /i/nsurgents are under the tutelage of Gregg Hagglund, Tory Christman, and Mark Bunker, it's only going to be a matter of time before OSA kicks it into high gear to start tracking these kids down.

This is just a salvo of an upcoming battle, the likes of which Co$ hasn't ever seen before. So long as Anonymous can remain decentralized and have more than one forum to communicate, this could be interesting to see play out.

Re:Maybe...

[MillionthMonkey]

boards for epileptic support shouldn't be written with javascript and image upload ability in the first place? Just a thought.

I almost bitchslapped you down as Overrated but decided to reply instead. Those boards are using standard PHP BBS packages off the shelf. They're already pretty buggy; on the EFA you keep getting immediately logged out, you keep losing posts, etc. Surprisingly epileptics don't tend to be experts at putting together crackerjack bulletin boards secure from unconventional cyberattacks that nobody anticipates, like asshats uploading strobe light movies. I guess they have to shut down their mailing lists, too, in case a Scientologist uploads an attachment.

Most of the seizure-induced hallucinations I get while staring at a computer screen happen when I'm using Eclipse. Blocks of code start disappearing into blind spots or they fly across the screen but somehow remain at their home positions. It's actually kind of annoying because I know I have 20 minutes to check the shit in. Although it's visually-related epilepsy, it doesn't seem to be photosensitive so a trick like this probably wouldn't work. It's more shocking and insulting than anything. But one thing I will say about epilepsy is that you have to put up with a surprising amount of shit from people. [qj.net]

Re:Riiight...

[Zocalo]

Actually, I was just pointing out that Anonymous has no motive for an attack on epileptics while Scientology has every reason to want to discredit Anonymous and this smacks of Scientology's usual modus operandi. I don't believe I made any statement about my views on either side, other than that I'm not particularly pro-Scientology, but what the hell... For the record I think that the upper echelons of Scientology are a bunch of deceitful scumbags whose sole purpose in the organisation is to manipulate the more gullible members of the organisation into giving them large sums of cash and will do pretty much anything to keep that gravy train flowing. Typical cult in other words.

Anonymous, on the otherhand, I think has a worthwhile agenda in showing the public at large just what they can expect should they ever be tempted to join, or coerced into joining, Scientology. I do however have a problem with *their* operational methods though - not the peaceful protests, which are harmless to everyone and everything except Scientology's recruitment drive and gravy train, but their more militant activities like launching a series of DDoS attacks against Scientology. That does indeed smack of them consisting, at least in part, of a bunch of 13-year old script kiddies with no life that are perfectly capable of smearing themselves.

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[Bert64]

Or could it be that, due to the original anonymous group against scientology being well, anonymous, they are easy to impersonate...
Thus, the second anonymous group attacking epileptics is actually compose of members of the church of scientology seeking to discredit the original anonymous group?

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[arstchnca]

"and there's no reason to think they wouldn't do something like this." How about the fact that this isn't, well, that funny? It isn't very "troll" to post flashing gifs etc. It's not like the people seizing are going to make hilarious angry posts about how successful you were. This seems utterly different.

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[stinkytoe]

Man i wish i had mod points right now. As moot a point as it is for me to say so, i'd spend all 5 on you and the GP. You''dve gotten 3 positive, and the GP would've gotten 2 flaimbait, and id've felt my mod duties would have been achieved.

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[hedwards]

This was largely my thought, how exactly do we know that these are actually people that are affiliated with that movement, and not just Scientologists looking to smear their adversary.

Or equally likely a random collection of griefers that hit on the idea of doing a threefer.

The "evidence" that they've cited at the end is extremely tenuous. It could be related to the Anonymous effort to end Scientology, some Scientologists themselves or just a random assortment of people looking to cause as much trouble as possible.

The thing that I kind of have to wonder about is why people with epilepsy would be cruising the net without pop up, javascript and gif blockers on. Even if there weren't an attack of this sort, there are plenty of sites on the net with animations and such which could very easily trigger these sorts of symptoms.

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[FredFredrickson]

Mod parent up- Fact is that "anonymous" means nobody knows who did it. So blaiming the people who are attacking scientology for an anonymous attack is the same as blaiming every crime whose perpetrator is unknown on the group protesting scientology.

It seems the only ones looking to benefit from making this connection would be the church of scientology itself, and this "article" just helps the scientology propaganda.

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[HairyNevus]

So, basically true Anonymous are asshole douchebags?

Oh noes! I guess I'm gonna get pizzas delivered to my homepage now?

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. The ones protesting the CoS are not true Anonymous. They can do what they want, but they're not what they claim to be.

Re:Assholes

[Deanalator]

I hate scientology as much as the next guy, but yes, this is the same Anonymous.

1. I saw this last week on 4chan, it was fucked up then, and is fucked up now.

2. Anonymous is not a group. It is not even an agenda. Anonymous is a way to rally for a cause, whatever that cause may be. I have been a part of many invasions, and if it is a cause I believe in, I will do more. Obviously I sat this one out.

3. Almost every anonymous invasion has the theme of "getting the word out". This is exactly in the MO of anonymous. In this case, I believe the message is that no one, not even a web forum designed to help the sick, should be ignorant of security. Anonymous was able to inject CSS to get the theme to flash random colors, and do various XSS attacks to redirect users to all sorts of malicious visuals. The epilepsy board also apparently had no sense of incident response. Some people are willing to hurt innocent people to make this point.

I think this attack also brings up an interesting point. For my day job, I do security testing for networked medical devices attempting to get HIPPA or iso13485 compliance. Should web based tools like this forum be forced to meet the same security standards? Just a thought.

Re:Anonymous, or the Hubbardistas?

[schon]

Anonymous has been romanticized as a morally driven vigilante group.

This, and the fact that you're posting as an AC made me wonder if you're a cult member.

Anonymous taking on Scientology is more akin to [...] spray painting a swastika on a Jewish community center.

This made me sure of it.

It isn't. I have followed various /b/ and /i/ boards for a long time.

This is a clear debunking of the rationale present in this post. [slashdot.org]

If you know anything about the cult, you know about "Fair Game".

Considering the amount of AC posts here (like yours) that are pro-cult, it's pretty obvious that this is a *VERY* lame attempt at framing their detractors.

Re:May or may not be the same Anons

[gad_zuki!]

>are likely not the same people protesting the Scientology organization.

So wait, youre telling that vigilante hackers (thats what anon is) cant be responsible for this? Err, theyre fricking vigilantes and when theyre done with scientology its back to spamming for profit and managing the bot networks. I think its time to bury whole 'righteous hacker' mythology once and for all.

Re:May or may not be the same Anons

[seebs]

I can't speak for the rest, but:

* I don't post to the chans, and never really got the point.
* I think this is pretty lame behavior, and wouldn't do it.
* I am active in protests and activism against the CoS.

I feel about this a little like I feel about the discovery that some Americans torture people to death. It's true, and I can hardly claim they're not really American, or that I'm not American. I also can't stop them or do anything about them, even though I really don't think they should do that.

I'm more inclined to blame it on the people who think they're "oldfags" (most of whom, it seems to me, are a bit newer to this than the people who wandered into the anti-CoS stuff) than on the CoS. It would be a very effective false flag attack, though, a great way to raise awareness that "Anonymous" is full of crazy-mean people.

On the other hand, it's also a way to remind people that there are things worse than even the worst Anonymous has to offer, and the CoS is one of them. There are thousands of folks out there who looked at the history of Anonymous doing stuff like this, looked at the CoS, and decided to show up with a mask and a sign for the protests.

Re:Stop lying, Christ.

[Lehk228]

you are the 4th or 5th person with a low post count asserting that Scientology could not possibly have done this and that they aren't afraid of anonymous.

a pattern emerges

the pattern says go back to clearwater

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[popmaker]

All this might mean however, that people make the connection between "anonymous", the group that protests scientology, and "anonymous", the internet assholes that cause epileptic seizures. People might not stop to think about all this "no-organization-no-values" ideology and simply make the mental connection that "Anonymous" is just like any other group of people, and they just might now make the conclusion that they are BAD. Thus the whole anti-scientology effort is undermined. Because if a group of assholes protests something - do we have any idea if what they were protesting was bad or not?

It's the message that gets compromised, not the group, which - like you said - isn't really a group anyway.

Re:Dude,

[Anonymous Coward]

they are not the 'internet'.

they are morons.

do you really WANT to understand them?

"No anonymous"

[pedantic bore]

OK, it sounds like "anonymous" is just a really poor spelling of "asshole".

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah lets discredit the people who post and make fun of kiddie porn, defiled corpses, brutalized animals, shitporn, and just about anything else you can think of.

This is why the Co$ protests are retarded. You shouldn't bring attention to 4chan, especially not by a bunch of litigators that even made google bend to its will.

And this is coming from a guy who lurks /b/ all day. /b/ is not your personal clubhouse. We'd reject you like every other group you've tried to belong to if we could, but we can't. That doesn't mean you belong or you should ask others to invade that girl you like's myspace. Fucking newfags.

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[emilper]

awesome ? this was kind of lame, you know ... like taking candy from children, stealing crutches from the crippled and painting the faces of the blind; if they are so great and powerful, they should organize duels among themselves.

  more likely stupid than "awesome" , if they are the same group that took on the CoS.

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[aurispector]

I think we can all agree that this incident is utterly and completely reprehensible. It's one thing for griefers to screw around with overly serious gamers or troll/flame discussion boards - no real harm done at the end of the day. To deliberately attempt to induce a seizure may be a criminal act.

Considering recent events it does not seem likely that "Anonymous" would do it - their campaign is meant to expose CoS's alleged misdeeds; an altruistic motive. Blaming "Anonymous" doesn't make sense in this context.

In these days of never ending spin and propaganda, the *first* thing to do when analyzing an event like this is to look carefully at who's ends are served by the fallout. The most likely culprits are either 1)some random asshole or 2)CoS. Of the two, who's ends are best served by this event?

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[K8Fan]

Smear campaign by Scientology...count on it.

Agreed. Anyone who doubts that they are capable of doing this needs to read about "Operation Freakout" [wikipedia.org] a campaign to destroy the career and mental health of journalist Paulette Cooper. Scientology's goons stole her stationary and sent bomb threats. She was only cleared after voluntarily submitting to questioning by the FBI under sodium pentothal.

Close but no cigar

[dreamchaser]

Akin to the nigger race maybe..

More akin to the racist brand of Anonymous Coward.

Agree! How can all anonymi be the same?

[KWTm]

Agree with parent. The whole point of being anonymous is that people don't know who you are. Now, one or more persons might specifically take on the pseudonym "Anonymous" (capitalized), but then that would only be applicable within a very specific context, and certainly it would be silly to say, "But *I'm* the *real* Anonymous!" Imagine a conversation like this:

A: "Someone suggested that taxes be raised. I didn't know who it was."
B: "Really? Someone whom I didn't know had suggested that taxes be lowered. Boy, this person that we don't know sure has trouble making up his mind!"

(Yes, I know that "anonymi" is not the correct plural. Yes, I know that "anonymous" is not spelled "anonymus". If the plural of "mouse" is "mice", perhaps the plural of "anonymous" is "anonymic"?)

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[brusk]

Except that one can choose to identify with anonymous or not; one has less choice about one's race (one can control one's own sense of identity somewhat, less how others perceive one).

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[eat here_get gas]

**posted anonymously to avoid a hit on my karma ^_^**

fsking pussy

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[Lemmy Caution]

What's amazing is how not-new this lame adolescent misanthropic posturing really is.

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[LrdDimwit]

This is not a juvenile prank. This isn't anything close to a juvenile prank, the same way swatting [typepad.com] isn't. A juvenile prank would have been subliminal flashing penises, not iterative deployment of effects specifically designed to be highly effective against many types of epilepsy. Thousands of people were affected, it was an ongoing attack that received several refinements to make it more effective, so it wasn't spur-of-the-moment either.

Someone not only came up with the idea of forcing people to have epileptic fits, but was evil enough to follow through with it. This is a serious disease, with serious detrimental effects, and it was perpetrated in a way designed to maximize exposure.

The perps need to be found, and need to be prosecuted. Bury them with one seperate count of (at the least) assault for every person who says they suffered epileptic attacks. If law enforcement can't nail these guys, then they may as well throw in the towel, because it means they lost. The bad guys win.

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, a few minutes ago I was thinking about how miserable I am and how much my life sucks. Now I see you, and I feel pretty smug about myself. I can't possibly be as poorly off as you are. I guess that makes me just like you, except that I get my schadenfreude without working for it and without the damage of inflicting pain on other people... which is undoubtedly just one of many ways I'm better and happier than you.

** posting anonymously because you have a dangerous amount of time on your hands, and you don't understand your own self-interest well enough for me to count on that holding you back :-P **

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ghost in the Shell?

[tygerstripes]

Ooookay, anyone getting a "Ghost in the Shell - Stand Alone Complex" vibe from this whole thread? Seriously, if you were all in a virtual-reality chat room instead of /. this would be the Laughing Man discussion down to a T...

Re:Griefers?

[try_anything]

Background: I'm not a WoW player or an FPS player. I generally don't play online games against other people, and I avoid forums set up in a way that encourages casual trolling. I got excellent scores on the verbal sections of the SAT and GRE :-)

I like the words "griefer" and "griefing" and would not hesitate to use them in conversation. They are not redundant with other words that are already in my vocabulary. I know other words like "jerk" and "asshole" and "sadist," but they're a bit different. "Sadist" is similar to "griefer," but even "sadist" describes a person's character more than his actions.

To me, "griefing" suggests something open, superficial, and habitual, while "sadism" suggests something profound that may be entirely hidden. A griefer might leave a broken bottle on an old man's back porch and laugh about it, but would probably feel sick if he saw an old man crying with glass stuck in his feet. A sadist wouldn't bother leaving the bottle if he couldn't watch.

Griefers wish they were sadists, but they aren't. Thus, they must take an industrial approach rather than a hedonistic one -- "How much pain have I caused?" instead of "How much pain have I enjoyed?" The internet is a perfect place for griefing, because you can gloat about a person's suffering without experiencing the empathic response that a real, live, suffering human being might provoke.

Re:Smear campaign by Scientology

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the attack on the epilepsy forums were orchestrated by CoS, who would stand to gain from the discredit of Anonymous.

That's the big drawback of their (anon) crusade - it is extremely easy for one to don their mask and do damaging work in their name.