Anonymous Member Sentenced For Joining DDoS Attack For One Minute 562
jfruh writes "One of the most potent aspects of Anonymous is, well, its anonymity — but that isn't absolute. Eric Rosol was caught by federal authorities participating in a DDoS attack on a company owned by Koch Industry; for knocking a website offline for 15 minutes, Rosol got two years of probation and had to pay $183,000 in restitution (the amount Koch paid to a security consultant to protect its website ater the attack)."
The worst part? From the article: "Eric J. Rosol, 38, is said to have admitted that on Feb. 28, 2011, he took part in a denial of service attack for about a minute on a Web page of Koch Industries..."
And they wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Funny)
>Where's the "Like" button?
That's the "Insightful" or "Interesting" option, which you don't have but I do. Oops!
Re: (Score:3)
Unsurprisingly, this is a preemptive measure to prevent DoS of the moderation system.
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the "Insightful" or "Interesting" option, which you don't have but I do. Oops!
Not to be confused with the [I Disagree] option, which is labelled "Troll" and/or "Flamebait."
Re: (Score:3)
... and this is why people have been trying (unsuccessfully) to get the legislature to do something about the CFAA and such for years. It's massively abused, but nobody wants to fix it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a wildly disproportionate punishment!
"Kill the Chicken to Scare the Monkey" -- Chinese Saying
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not justice at all, like the other one said. If police are too incompetent, or it is unfeasible to catch most people who commit a certain crime, they can't (or rather, shouldn't) punish those they do catch much more severely simply because they can't catch other people who commit said crime. Justice > security.
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you're falling into the Austrian Economics trap of thinking of everything as a rational system.
People aren't rational. People who are violating the law especially aren't rational.
There is ample statistics that show increases in penalties do not have a linear impact on crime on any macro scale and in many cases, increases in punishment result in no net increase in compliance.
They do, however, from a utilitarian view, impact the overall good generated by the justice system.
Therefore increasing penalties shows a diminishing return (and a rather rapid one, in my view).
I view a 1 minute DoS attack as roughly akin to orchestrating one minute of blocking the entrance to a store (or maybe multiple stores). Such an act, while punishable by a trespassing fine, probably on the order of $100-$500, the "online" equivalent of $183,000 and two years probation does not match the act, especially when he was one of only several thousand people doing the same thing.
There are a few countries in the 1960s and 1970s that adopted the policy that there is no social justification for "making an example" of someone, and that the purpose of the justice system is rehabilitation and fair application of rules, rather than vindictive retribution, catharsis for victims, or the attempt to squash crime through draconian punishments.
Those countries (Norway, Denmark, Korea, New Zealand) stand in contrast to those countries who adopted a policy of "tough on crime" during the same period (the US, Britain, France). Looking back, the crime rates in these countries diverged, and today we find those countries with liberal justice systems having seen their crime rate drop much faster than those with draconian justice policy.
Sure, this is anecdote, but I don't buy vengance or harsh deterrence as justified reasons for rolling out the stocks on the few people who are caught at a relatively rare crime.
Boycott == legacy DDOS tech (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, there's one DDOS attack that's perfectly legal. Boycott Koch Industries and all their products. Of course it'd take some hunting to find out just what Koch does besides drill for oil, foul the environment and inject tons of money to corrupt the political system to their ends.
Re: (Score:3)
Justice system is most often a misnomer. We can rarely provide any worthwhile justice. We can, however, enforce a code of laws.
I think the penalty here is vastly disproportionate. On the other hand, I do think the guy knowingly broke the law and should have suffered a penalty. Probation for two years seems reasonable. The fine should have been more in the $5-10K range as a 'hurts but won't kill you' fine. It has to be bad en
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:4, Insightful)
deterrence
Prove the deterrence exists, otherwise the equation is irrational: Based zero evidence, and on speculative bullshit instead.
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Interesting)
The actualy formula for deterrence (0 - expected utility) is: Deterrence = (Probability of getting caught) * (Severity of punishment) - (Benefit) * (1 - (Probability of getting caught)).
This doesn't actually work for three reasons:
Even ancient Rome, where conservatives demanded criminals be crucified and bleeding-heart liberals merely fed them to lions, never ran out of them.
Another way this is misleading is that the lifetime of debt slavery - what the $183,000 amounts to - is not considered the punishment. 2 years probation is the punishment; $183,000 is "damages". Thus what we have here is an example of a rather nasty loophole in the law, where the main part of a punishment is not subject to normal lawmaking process but is rather ordered by the judge on a case-by-case basis. This leads to exactly this kind of perversions.
Compare: if my dog took a dumb in your lawn, would I be quilty and should I clean it up? Absolutely. If you then spent $183,000 to dog-proof your yard, should I pay for it? Of course not, that's crazy. Except that's exactly what happend here.
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:4, Interesting)
What evidence is there for stricter laws deterring more crime?
What little I can find runs opposite to that notion. Specifically, the 3 strikes you get life laws have been shown to have zero effect deterring crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When you have lots of cash at your disposal, lobbyists on your payroll, and congressmen in your pocket, all things are legally possible. Even if you used an automated tool. We should use this man as our rallying cry to attack Koch Industries again. Also educate people on how to create civil disobedience and not get caught.
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
...create civil disobedience and not get caught.
Then you are missing the point of civil disobedience. You are supposed to get caught, especially in places like the US where LEOs like to have a bit of theatricality in perp-walking someone out to the squad car. You want all the attention you can get, that's the point, you are calling attention to something you believe to be wrong.
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are plenty of people who trust the Justice system. Those who have lawyers in retinue.
Re: (Score:2)
Right? And John Thain still runs free.
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you make that comparison? Just a few months ago JP Morgan was fined $14Billion by US and UK regulators for its involvement in various dealings leading up to the crash. So far, nearly $100Billion in fines has been handed out across the US and EU for suspect deals that contributed to the financial climate prior to the crash.
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
$100 Billion may sound like a lot to you but that doesn't mean it's meaningful in regards to the actual damages done. More often than not when massive horrible things are done by Corporations (the crash of the financial/real estate markets, the Gulf oil spill, etc.) large corps get hit with penalties that look massive to an individual but actually only represent a small part of the true cost of restitution and only represent a day or two of operating profits at most for the company.
What happened in the story is so astonishingly unjustly inverted from that scenario because, in contrast, this guy was hit with the entire cost of the damages (even though he was only a tiny contributor to the actual crime, and that penalty probably represents many years worth of profits for him (minus the basic costs of living and taxes). It would be like fining JP Morgan all the Trillions of dollars that were estimated to have been lost throughout the economy because the courts didn't feel that they were likely to be able to clearly identify any of the other big players in the crime. Then, for good measure, make it so that the costs of litigating appeals of that verdict would be so expensive that it was guaranteed to drive the company into complete bankrupts (since even if this guy has a decent job and was able to afford a non-state appointed attorney for this trial it's unlikely he'll be able to hire a highly competent set of lawyers throughout the entire appeals process in the same way major companies to in order to successfully drive down the original, already too small, fines they are hit with).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's 100billion more then Freddy of Fanny will pay. You know the government chartered non-profits run by former executive branch big wigs that started the whole mess by buying crap mortgages in a misguided effort to engineer society? Freddy and Fanny.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget this part: the amount Koch paid to a security consultant to protect its website ater the attack
So if I have no locks on my door, and someone comes in, they need to pay for the locks I decide maybe I should have had on my door?
That's not how computer security works though. This was a DDoS attack. It's more like having a decent lock on your door, but then someone uses a battering ram so you spring for a steel-reinforced door instead.
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/nobody-should-shed-a-tear-for-jp-morgan-chase-20131025 [rollingstone.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Informative)
Not one mention of Republicans in that link.
So, you are just guessing? Hoping? Accusing?
We know you are lying, that's plain to see by visiting the link.
Or, you are just being a dick.
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:4, Insightful)
He assumes no one will check the link and just go by what he posted (as the modding and other responses demonstrate.)
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is someone who uses legal tax exemptions the one to blame? How about the congresspukes who add 4,000 pages of exemptions, credits and penalties to the tax code every year?
Taxes are not merely intended to take in revenue. You don't need 80,000 pages to do that. The principal purpose of the tax code is to control, or at least influence "behavior". And we all know what the IRS is for.
Importance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Importance (Score:5, Interesting)
Financial penalties should be proportional:
- how many others participated in this DDOS? divide by that number
- how long were other machines involved in this? divide by that time
- how fast was his internet connection in comparison to the others? divide by that
He admitted to guilt, but it's not fair to hold him completely financially responsible simply because he was the only person they were able to catch and was honest enough to confess.
Re:Importance (Score:4, Interesting)
Charging the defendants with the cost of 'fixing' their web site is bogus, because they should have had that done in the first place to prevent themselves from being open to attack
Re:Importance (Score:5, Insightful)
Charging robbers for the cost of replacing doors is bogus, because the home owner should have installed steel vault doors in the first place to prevent themselves from being open to attack.
Re:Importance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Importance (Score:5, Informative)
Actually they do. Had a meth head that kept breaking into my fathers garage and stealing tools to pawn. Installed some cameras and actually caught some kid about 15 or so doing it. The judge orderd him to pay for the cameras plus all the tools stolen over the 5 or 6 break ins. We sued his parents and got a judgement for $15k in all.this was around 2000 or so. It covered the instalation of the security system, cameras, and time taken off work to rush homr and see what was stolen this time.
Re:Websites are public places. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with your analogy is that in the case of murder, if a second person gets caught, he'll face murder charges too. There is no restitution - it's punitive.
But in this case, where the only person who got caught was faced with the entire charge, a second person who gets caught won't have to pay anything because it's already paid. It destroys equality in front of the law.
Either that, or you make the second person pay the same amount, and then you have a victim or court system that profits from him being caught. Which both are even worse alternatives.
The damage he should pay is what damage he caused. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re:Importance (Score:4, Insightful)
The charge here is that you stood in front of someone's house and didn't let their friends in.
Lets at least understand the analogy ... no *damage* was done to the home by the criminal in this case. The upgrades were just to prevent the same thing from happening again.
Legally speaking, I'd put this down as "wrong" in the same category as repeatedly ringing someone's doorbell all day to annoy them and not letting people into the driveway by standing in the way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it should be higher than that--you have to multiply it enough that it discourages the behavior. That's how legal penalties work, even in a consequentialist rather than retributivist model. That means you have to take into account the probability of getting caught, which is low.
Re:Importance (Score:5, Insightful)
Even under that model an absurdly high number is still an absurdly high number. He can never repay it. Thus it will never be repaid. The "punitive benefit" of that number is entirely bogus.
Justice is never served by an unreasonably high number.
It's far more likely to increase disrespect for the law.
Re:Importance (Score:5, Interesting)
There's an old expression: Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.
Roughly meaning: If the punishment for a minor crime is going to ruin you, why stop at minor? Go for something serious. They can't make the punishment any worse.
Re:Importance (Score:5, Interesting)
A salient example of s/sheep/lamb/ is the drug war which has become ever more violent over time as penalties for getting caught become ever more draconian. If you're going to do a life (or close to it) sentence for getting caught, might as well just kill the person trying to catch you or witnessing what you are doing, and improve your chance of remaining free.
Re:Importance (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Fear of punishment is the thing that keeps me on my toes when committing serious crimes.
As it should be.
The real problem is there are so many laws and 'serious crimes' that I commit them by accident.
Re: (Score:3)
My morality stops me from doing what's wrong. Fear of punishment is what stops me from breaking the law.
Laws are very [citation needed] in origin, they're not all based on morality or facts.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that wasn't a fine it was a retribution payment. He is being made to pay for 100% of the damages though he probably represented less than a small fraction of a single percentage of the attack. So what happens if they manage to find another one of the perpetrators, does that person get off without any financial penalties because the retribution has already been allocated to another?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the best way to discourage a DDoS is to say that the more people you involve in the DDoS, the less punishment you should receive for getting caught?
I can't think of a better way to encourage DDoS participation to be honest.
I don't know about anybody else, but I think a DDoS is a form of censorship. A website provides information, effectively making it speech. Even if it is speech you disagree with, you should let it be. Personally, I hate communism more than just about anything, but I wouldn't ever encou
Re:Importance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Importance (Score:5, Insightful)
A DDoS should be punished with community service; its no different from protesting a store you dislike and making it hard for customers to get in.
Re:Importance (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry massa, didn't mean to sit on the whites only seat. I'll go pay the fine I should morally have to pay now for breaking this fine and just law.
Re: (Score:2)
You are completely right?
That's why we need snipers in every building, ready to take down anyone who breaks any law!
You spit a chewing gum on a public street? BAM! HEADSHOT!
Re:Importance (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Importance (Score:4, Funny)
Who snipes the snipers?
I prefer it in Latin, "Quis snipodiet ipsos snipodes?"
Re: (Score:2)
You killed one person or 800'000, you did it, you're guilty of genocide.
Examples following this lead can be pushed to the absurd... it only shows how this is absurd as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Importance (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know why you were modded down. In my home town, as a prank arouns graduation, the seniors would dump liquid soap in a fountain so it would bubble all over the place. It was visible on the main drag. Another aspect was putting that art celulous over the lights illuminating it to match the school colors (blue and gold). It took about 50 graduates in order to do it without getting picked up by the cameras. One year, they put sensors in the foutain that went off when the soap changed the ph levels enough alerting the city to what was happening. Out of about 100 students that participated 6 where caught- 4 who hadn't even dumped the soap yet and they had to pay for the entiee security theator that ensued for a midemeanor act of mischief. The sad part is that this had happened for so long, everyone thought the city was in on it and we just needed to watch out for the caretaker who would be upset because he had to clean it later.
I learned then that you aren't 2% guilty. If you participate, you are 100% liable and that liability includes what they spent in response to your actions. This was back in the late 80s early 90s. Nothing new with this kid outside of what was vandalized.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is they wouldn't ticket you for every car that ran the redlight, only yours. However, you might be on the hook for something like conspiracy to run red lights (it's an imperfect analogy).
Re: (Score:3)
I like to point people at this nifty bit of reading. [crime-research.org]
These people (Score:5, Interesting)
These people need to learn what actual violence against them and their property is, so that proportionate responses have value.
If your entire life is going to be ruined for any sort of protest, the natural incentive is to go in for intimidation, murder, arson, whatever to make their lives really hell instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Not that I'm endorsing DDOSing, just reacting to disproportionate responses.
Actual Violence (Score:4, Insightful)
These people need to learn what actual violence against them and their property is
Then you get to learn what ACTUAL violence is, either buy police officer or prison inmate.
Let me know when you want off the not-so-merry-go-round.
If your entire life is going to be ruined for any sort of protest, the natural incentive is to go...
Except that property damage is not protest.
Actions that will ruin my entire life do not "incent" me to act worse, they in fact very much incent me not to ruin my life. It is possible to protest without damaging anyone or anything, a fact that seems lost on many groups these days.
Re: (Score:2)
How much does "police officer or prison inmate" cost?
Re:Actual Violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you get to learn what ACTUAL violence is, either buy police officer or prison inmate.
His point is that this fellow is learning what ACTUAL violence is, by police officer and prison inmate, for doing nothing more than sending TCP packets.
Except that property damage is not protest.
Two things: A DDOS is not property damage. And are you claiming the Boston Tea Party [wikipedia.org] was not a protest?
It is possible to protest without damaging anyone or anything
It's not possible to effectively protest anything in todays America. You can have your say all you want inside free speech zones, but you'll never be heard. What good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?
Re:Actual Violence (Score:4, Insightful)
Marriage equality in several states.
Fair enough.
Marijuana legalization in several states.
Notice that in both Colorado and Washington these measures were approved by the popular vote, not by legislators.
Stopping anti-union legislation in a few states.
Which states? Didn't help in Michigan or Wisconsin.
An effective protest is one where your opinions are heard and considered fairly
And that happens extremely rarely in the US. Marriage equality is one example, but a fairly trivial one. No one in power stands to gain or lose much when marriage equality is enacted. Try getting your voice heard when those in power are profiting off of the bad policy you are protesting. The overwhelming majority of issues are impossible for the public to affect because of such conflicts of interest.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, I got the sarcastic spelling quibble out of my system. Let me reply a little more seriously to something you said.
Actions that will ruin my entire life do not "incent" me to act worse, they in fact very much incent me not to ruin my life
And yet evidence clearly shows people do it anyways. If the consequences are dramatic either way, what really holds them back?
Re: (Score:3)
So then what kind of protest against a corporate entity can't be skewed into property damage via "deprivation of business?"
Re: (Score:2)
Damned right!
Let's get together a nice posse, and have ourselves a good ol' lynching! Vigilante justice is the best justice, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You Got Caught, Case Closed (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't matter if it was for one minute, one hour or one day. You did the crime, you do the crime. If you rape a woman for one minute, you get sentenced for the same as if you raped her for ten minutes.
This is a stupid and dumb angle to take slashdot. You should be utterly and completely ashamed to even articulate this.
Re:You Got Caught, Case Closed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ridiculous. He didn't rape anyone. He didn't hurt anyone. He rapidly requested web pages for 1 minute, slightly contributing to a computer bogging down. In a less batshit-crazy, less rabidly corporatist world, this would carry a punishment on par with dropping a cigarette butt on the street.
One minute? Oh, my... (Score:2)
What about that curl-loader test I did that lasted for two hours?
Oh wait, that was at my job. Never mind, carry on...
The Crime of Admission (Score:2)
No, the worst part was joining in the attack (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowingly trying to bring down web sites is a crime. Should we also not arrest people if they only throw one brick through a store window but do not take anything? Should we also not arrest people who kick someone only once when lying on the ground?
A crime is a crime, and the act of committing a crime takes only the moment you decide you are going to commit it. The duration of the actual crime hardly matters when compared to intent.
Also, consider the fact that the minute is only the point they could prove what he did, if he was willing to aid in DDOS attacks who knows how many other people he helped attack in the past?
Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (Score:5, Insightful)
It's supposed to be a justice system, and that fine is clearly unjust.
Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So every time I break a window, the worse thing that can happen, in the very unlikely event that I get caught, is that I pay to replace the window? Hell, even if you tack on 300% punitive damage, the odds of me getting caught is so damn low, I probably can break the entire city's windows.
Since when I finally do get caught, they probably won't be able to prove it was me who did all the others (its not the most uncommon of crimes)... so I break 1000 windows, and, including punitive damage, I'm only on the hoo
Re: (Score:3)
> So every time I break a window, the worse thing that can happen, in the very unlikely event that I get caught, is that I pay to replace the window?
Pretty much. This is a very basic and OLD legal principle.
It's BIBLICAL even.
You know... all of that "eye for an eye" stuff. It's not just about poking people's eyes out.
But we all know that there's a blatant double standard here. Tort reform for the rich, crime and punishment for the poor.
I am focusing on "worst part" comment (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, you'll note I am mainly referring to the comment that the 'worst part" is that he only participated for a minute. You seem to be arguing the worst part is the fine.
I partly agree, however I would also say that computers allow us to magnify actions beyond what we can do physically - just as we can send a message to millions via computer, we can also easily do millions of dollars in damage via computer to. I can't say what the right fine would be but it's probably not proportional to what someone would think one persons fine should be...
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. The price of fixing the window is the price the malcontent causes them. The extra security and upgrades to the window to deal with future bricks is.... their choice. I mean, if I destroy your dodge neon. Its perfectly fair to say I need to to pay you its replacement value; and probably more if it was malicious; Its replacement value is not the cost of the Ferrari you decided you wanted to upgrade to since you had to get a new car anyway.
Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things should happen when you toss a brick through a store window. First the owner or perhaps the state on the owners behalf should initiate a civil proceeding against you where minimally upon being found liable be compelled to pay the full replacement and installation costs of a new window. Additional you might reasonably be expected to compensate the owner for the temporary loss of use of his property while the windows is being repaired. You must compensate for the harm to the owners property.
Then a criminal charges should be brought against you because its not in societies interest to have people thinking they can go around and break windows. Given throwing bricks through plate glass in public places has a high probability of injuring others that penalty too should be not insignificant. When its all said and does committing a senseless destructive act of vandalism like that should set you back a few thousand dollars; in the interest of justice.
Now lets think about the DDOS attack. Its vandalism pretty similar; but unless you are DDOS a hospital, public utility, or some government sites and similar there is basically no probability of anyone getting hurt as a direct consequence. So if anything the harm is automatically much lower. Unlike the window your computer is still perfectly fine once the DDOS is over and done with. So we are really down to society wanting to discourage vandalism and the short term loss of the use of property. Seems to me the penalty might be tied to the revenue the site nominally generates during the period for the owners and a little wrist for society to remind you not to be a prick.
183K is way out of line for 60 of participation in a DDOS, even if your hitting a site like Amazon.
Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem is that he's likely never going to be able to repay it. This fine is a fiction. Such fiction undermines the law and respect for same.
Something sane that this person could actually pay would have been much more meaningful in terms of law and order.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, a crime is a crime, but if we are going to build analogies with real world crimes they should at least be correct.
Obviously many DDOS attacks are not carried out by volunteers. They are instead vast hijacked zombie farms under the control a few people. In those cases the term "attack" makes more sense. From my understanding this DDOS attack was carried out by volunteers though. It should really be considered a protest.
What if this guy was part of a real world flash mob that formed in front of a Koch's
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes it was.
That's what made it civil disobedience, and that's why people were arrested and fined for it, until the Supreme Court [wikipedia.org] overturned the law.
But when the situation is reversed.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But when the situation is reversed.... (Score:5, Funny)
Your subject line raises an interesting point: I'd never before recognized that the Koch brothers' advertising and astroturfing is just a DDoS of the airwaves (and public discourse).
I already knew it is evil, but this takes it to a new level!
But your honor! (Score:4, Interesting)
Well stop trying to hack people! (Score:3, Interesting)
1. It is ineffective. The Koch brothers stance that there is some Liberal Conspiracy going on, hacking them and creating a DOS only proves their paranoia, and only makes them more resolved to continue.
2. It could hurt the wrong people. Are you hitting only their data center, or is that data center shared with other organizations as well. I had a job at a placed that hosted Electronic medical records. We had an external hosting site... They also hosted a big evil bank. They DOS the Bank but they also DOS thousands of doctors EMR systems. Granted we had a backup route, but that may not be the case.
3. You put your views on the moral low ground. Are your point so week and irrational that you need to jump into a technological bulling to get your point across.
Follow the rules (Score:3, Insightful)
The rules of modern day America are pretty simple. You have liberty to do whatever you like, but DON'T FUCK WITH THE OWNERS.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Slashdotting == DDOS? (Score:2)
Don't talk to the poilce (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]
It is an old clip and I've never been to sure about the UK use of this information regarding the Silence gives consent maxim of common law.
(D)DOS is the "burning books" of current century (Score:3)
Remember when people burned the books and pamphlets of their political opponents? How well did that work?
If you're annoyed at someone, please don't (D)DOS their site - it just strengthens their point and conviction.
It's how US justice works (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The length of time spent doing something illegal shouldn't absolve guilt that it was illegal in the first place. In my mind it's the same as the mob mentality that overtakes people during riots. Just because everyone else was looting more expensive goods doesn't excuse stealing something cheap.
And he wasn't just sending some traffic to a website. He was participating in a DDoS attack and full well knew what he was doing and what the group was trying to accomplish.
If you're going to break the law to try to
and they are part owners of private prisons (Score:3)
and they are part owners of private prisons so they even make bank off of the prison time as well.
Re: (Score:3)
and they are part owners of private prisons so they even make bank off of the prison time as well.
Yeah, they should be sued for insider trading! or something!
Seriously though, is $183K a reasonable price for what they needed doing? It sounds a tad expensive to me, so it would be interesting to know who created that invoice.