Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'

from the kind-of-misses-the-point dept

Fri, Jan 28th 2011 8:47am — Mike Masnick

With UK police arresting five guys accused of participating in the Anonymous cyberattacks to make a statement about efforts to block Wikileaks, as well as the FBI saying that it has executed more than 40 search warrants in the US in trying to track down those responsible, I'm curious if anyone has stopped to realize just how much this misses the point. I agree that the Anonymous attacks were childish and probably counterproductive, but, in the end, are they really much more than an online sit in?

By spending so much time, effort and resources in trying to track down some people who were making a statement online, all that officials have done is to give them that much more attention -- which is exactly what they wanted. As warned, these law enforcement agencies are misunderstanding the situation. Arresting these folks just gives the whole effort more attention, and attracts more interest in it. And, given that Anonymous is almost entirely unstructured and not at all dependent on any sort of "leadership," it's not as if these arrests cut off any head of an organization. There is no organization, let alone a head to cut off. But by doing this, it makes effective martyrs out of those involved, and likely attracts even more people to "join the cause."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anonymous, arrests, wikileaks

86 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 8:52am

By spending so much time, effort and resources in trying to track down some people who were making a statement online, all that officials have done is to give them that much more attention -- which is exactly what they wanted

Once again, you manage to miss the point of police action. It isn't to stop 100% of anything by the police actions alone, rather it is to make people who might join this sort of illegal action in the future consider the implications.

You may call anonymous "unstructured", but like anything it has it's leaders and it's followers. It's the ideas of a small number of people and a large number of "yeah, good idea" types following along. Take out the small number of people with the ideas (and the balls to use them) and you have are left with a collection of people with not direction and no power.

I suspect that all of anonymous is run by a very small group of people, probably less than 100 with any brains or leadership skills, and a few thousand impressionable kids who are willing to go along. When the police take down a few of the leaders, the rest of the group will scatter, mumbling to themselves about "police state" or something like that. Then they will go upstairs and eat the meat loaf their mom cooked for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  Once again, you manage to miss the point of police action. It isn't to stop 100% of anything by the police actions alone, rather it is to make people who might join this sort of illegal action in the future consider the implications.
  
  What you said might be the "point" of the police actions, but I think the results of such actions will actually be the opposite. Martyr(s) + internet will cause much more exposure than they would have otherwise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Seth, 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:21am
  
  Re:
  I imagine the "leaders" if there are any, are much better at keeping their anonymity. I doubt any of them are the ones being raided, but rather the kids that followed along.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:21am
  
  Re:
  I'm willing to bet money that the arrests do the exact opposite of what you say.
  
  More likely it's the "followers", as you describe, that got caught. The ones that don't know how to mask their connection source.
  
  Regardless, things have changed and technology has empowered people, the people are getting fed up with government and corporation BS.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bruce Ediger (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:28am
  
  Re: The Point of the Police Action
  I think we can all agree what the police probably had in mind with this action, which appears to have been coordinated with a similar mass arrest in the UK. I'm sure that the motivation was to "round up twice the usual number of leaders, and make an example out of 'em!".
  
  I think you're willfully missing the implications that this amount of probably mis-guided effort holds.
  
  The first thing that jumps to my mind is "Why did they put so much effort into this?" The material that has leaked so far isn't metaphorically explosive. Apparently, nobody has been killed, nobody has had their cover blown.
  
  The second thing is "What opportunity cost does this have?" That is, why not expend this amount of effort to go after spammers and other internet psychopaths? The spammers and botnet herders probably have more real economic impact than the LOIC had, so WTF?
  
  If this is the best trolling that you can do for your Evil Corporate Overlords, why are they paying you? "Eat the meatloaf their mom cooked for them." Deliberately underplaying or denigrating things that people have direct experience of really doesn't work as propaganda in the Internet Age. Astroturfers and Shills are almost universally recognized and publicly called out these days.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_joe (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:28am
  
  Re:
  Exactly. A few arrests will spook away most of the children that comprise Anonymous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Short of full crackdown with thousands being arrested I don't see anonymous stopping what they are doing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jjmsan (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    Because arresting people stopped all the demonstrations in the 50's and 60's.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 11:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The biggest problem I see with these DDOS attacks is that the government might start fining people, effectively using those fines to pay for the damages that the attacks caused (and the costs of arresting people).
      
      I think there are still some things that these more modern 'protests' just can't fully replace, like the impact of traditional demonstrations and protests where people physically go to the government and demand reasonable laws. It's sad that not enough people do that, but to really get the laws fixed I think more people need to participate in physical demonstrations. Civil disobedience is an option (ie: breaking copyright law) that results in fines if you get arrested and hence it doesn't really create incentive towards influencing the government to fix the law. Doing it in secret doesn't give the government incentive to fix the law because what good does that do special interest groups. Publicly infringing just makes them fine you and hand money over to them.
      
      and, to some extent, what good does physically protesting the government do, they merely ignore us.
      
      Things like boycotts might be good, perhaps people can choose not to buy anything until the government fixes the laws. Something with economic harm to special interest groups. Or things like less willingness to work, in exchange for using that time to protest, might be somewhat good because it has economical implications. We really need to view the incentive structure and figure out what behaviors will give the government incentive to fix the laws, behaviors that are difficult for the government to resist.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Back in the olden days (ie: if you watched black and white shows like Andy Griffith or even cowboy shows) if you broke a law you often either had the option to pay the fine or face jail. I think this often even applied to breaking civil laws, if someone sued you and you lost you can either pay or face jail. The thinking behind it is that if the laws are unreasonable, instead of contributing to a government that keeps on passing bad laws, people will rather go to jail. This gives the government incentive to change the laws because maintaining a nation of jails is very expensive and not doable.
        
        I think the jail option has mostly disappeared these days. In many cases you can face a fine and jail, but I think the option not to pay a fine has disappeared. Instead, people are forced to support a system of bad laws by paying fines for breaking those laws. I think such is symptomatic of an oppressive government.
        
        I know in the past African Americans were willing to go to jail for resisting bad laws, and the jails were so quickly full of people that it made the government change the laws, but in this case it's because you can't fine them anything since they don't have anything to fine them for. But what about for most people who, while they don't have much, do have something. The government can simply pass bad laws and take your money (in the form of fines) to support the enforcement those laws.
        
        The real solution is that a lot of people need to much more aggressively protest in a way that makes it economically inefficient for the government to do anything besides fix the laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 11:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Exactly. A few arrests will spook away most of the children that comprise Anonymous.
    
    yeah, that always works. thanks to operation sundevil no one hacks computers anymore.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 11:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Following this logic, no one going forward should be downloading movies/mp3's because of Jamie Thomas. Learn2logic
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 3:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, that logic doesn't follow at all. Remarkably, there is a difference between piracy and being an anon bot runner. People running the bots are doing it for some silly concept of revenge or whatever. When they realize that revenge is just getting them FBI up their butts, they will stop.
      
      People won't risk the reaction this is causing again, none of these children realized what would happen. Blogs like Techdirt and such have convinced these people that the authorities have no way to track them down, have no way to prosecute them, and that no laws a really broken. They got a stunning wakeup call (some at 6 am!) that reminds them and all the people they tell that story to that anon isn't really anon at all, and they are at risk for being idiots.
      
      Downloading movies / music / software is done for reward, and the risk / reward calculation is done with some actual reward. Being an anon bot runner isn't exactly rewarding.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 6:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Blogs like Techdirt and such have convinced these people that the authorities have no way to track them down"
        
        No, many commenters on this thread alone have pointed out that they can easily be tracked down. MM certainly knows it and expressed it several times in the past by the mere fact that he has many posts on people who have been sued left and right for things like infringement and defamation and the judge has ordered the ISP or message board provider to hand over peoples info.
        
        You're an idiot, where did you get the idea that we got the idea that it can't be tracked down. Stop putting words in your opponents mouth and building strawman, it only makes you look stupid.
        
        Many (if not most) of these people doing the DDOS know darn well they can easily be tracked down. They're not tech illiterate, just because you are, for them to be tenacious enough to join these sorts of groups and causes they at least know what an IP address is and how it can be used to track them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 6:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (and for them to be aware enough of the existences of these groups).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:28am
  
  Re:
  "it is to make people who might join this sort of illegal action in the future consider the implications."
  
  That tends to work when the people participating in illegal activities are doing so for what they perceive to be their own best interest. People who sell drugs, for instance, sell it because they think it's in their own best interest, they make money for doing it. So, the government can try and make it not in their personal best interest by making it illegal and implementing punishment against those doing it.
  
  Here, that's not the case. Someone who is participating in these attacks are not doing it to make money or because they personally benefit from it, they are doing it because they believe they are doing something right by standing up against an oppressive government. By arresting these people, and especially by implementing insane, cruel and unusual, punishments, you are merely confirming their beliefs that our government is oppressive, which may only drive them towards to be more aggressive.
  
  "An army's effectiveness depends on its size, training, experience, and morale, and morale is worth more than any of the other factors combined."
  
  Napoleon on War
  
  http://www.napoleonguide.com/maxim_war.htm
  
  There is a huge reason why, in war, things like morale are strongly stressed. It's not like politicians themselves arrest people, they have people do it for them. It's not like politicians and rich people fight wars, they have people below them do it. Those doing it need morale, they need to believe that what they are doing is right. If they don't, then who is going to fight the war? Those fighting it will purposely do a bad job. Technology is great, having a large army is nice, etc... but morale is everything. The same thing applies to having a functional society. The people in this nation are losing their faith in our government and there simply aren't enough jails to put every victimless criminal in. If the government can't win the morale of the American people, their efforts will fail, both in war and in trying to build a police state. After all, police are people too and if you can't hire enough police who believe they are doing something good to effectively police the state, it will fail.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    which may drive them towards being more aggressive. *
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:50am
  
  Re:
  You may call anonymous "unstructured", but like anything it has it's leaders and it's followers.
  
  not really. anonymous is a form of leaderless resistance. the point is that there is no central or hierarchical leadership.
  
  al-qaeda has evolved into such a structure.
  
  It's the ideas of a small number of people and a large number of "yeah, good idea" types following along. Take out the small number of people with the ideas (and the balls to use them) and you have are left with a collection of people with not direction and no power.
  
  yeah, the central idea is really simple: get pissed at someone, tell people to download loic and go nuts, rinse and repeat.
  
  these aren't sophisticated attacks perpetrated by skilled hackers. this is literally less than a dozen lines of code and maybe a thread pool.
  
  i've done it by accident using the wrong options for wget.
  
  it's easier than filesharing, and like filesharing, you'd have to go house to house and shoot people to put a stop to it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 11:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    Seriously you can do it in HTML in one small line.
    Also every browser know today have some app for auto refresh pages, just mark one second and let it rip.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben, 28 Jan 2011 @ 11:19am
  
  Re:
  "Once again, you manage to miss the point of police action"
  
  The point of ANY oppressive, draconian, violent governmental smack down is and always shall be to instill fear/terror in the governed! What is the definition of a terrorist? just watch and listen, employ a little critical logic and you will soon see who the real terrorists are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 4:32pm
  
  Re:
  I suspect that all of anonymous is run by a very small group of people, probably less than 100 with any brains or leadership skills, and a few thousand impressionable kids who are willing to go along. When the police take down a few of the leaders, the rest of the group will scatter, mumbling to themselves about "police state" or something like that. Then they will go upstairs and eat the meat loaf their mom cooked for them.
  
  I'm pretty sure the Polish authorities thought something like that back in the early 80's.
  
  See how that panned out.
  
  We saw something similar in Tunisia just a week or two back.
  
  I'm Spartacus!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - misterdoug (profile), 29 Jan 2011 @ 5:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Add Egypt to that list.
    
    It's hopeless to try to reason with people whose solution to every problem is that somebody just needs a good whippin'. If reality turns out to be more complicated than their beliefs, they'll fault reality rather than adjust their beliefs. Yet at the same time they rant about personal responsibility...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2011 @ 7:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yet at the same time they rant about personal responsibility...
      
      "Personal responsibility", like many things, is best when applied to *other* people.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 8:57am

When the Corporate Masters come a-callin'
...you do what they say.

Like the good book says:

And the magnates who remunerated the aldermen spake, saying "Lo, thou shalt hunt down and persecute Anonymous. So let it be written, so let it be done." And so it was.
-Book of Marx 6:42
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

jars, 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:02am

cool information this blog. i like .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:53am
  
  Re:
  Is it just me... or are flagged comments kinda like parental warning labels or movie/game rating labels?
  
  I simply cannot resist clicking on them to find out why they were flagged.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Is it just me... or are flagged comments kinda like parental warning labels or movie/game rating labels?
    
    I simply cannot resist clicking on them to find out why they were flagged.
    
    Flagging and hiding the comments is censorship that begets the Streisand Effect. Techdirt is a police state that encourages prior restraint. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killer_Tofu (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Not just you. But I cannot figure out why that comment was hidden either.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 3:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      because it contributed so little to the conversation that a certain minimum number of people decided it was spammy enough to hit the report button? *shrugs*
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 4:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        because it contributed so little to the conversation that a certain minimum number of people decided it was spammy enough to hit the report button? *shrugs*
        
        In other words, it was censored using techdirt's built-in censoring "report" button. Good job, techdirt minions! Let's censor techdirt users while you lament censorship in general!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        teka (profile), 29 Jan 2011 @ 9:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        c'mon joe, even you can tell there is a difference between user reports to hide what is incredibly likely to be a spam message and a government agent deciding what can and cannot be communicated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 29 Jan 2011 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        c'mon joe, even you can tell there is a difference between user reports to hide what is incredibly likely to be a spam message and a government agent deciding what can and cannot be communicated.
        
        But according to techdirt, it's censorship no matter who is doing the blocking, whether they're government agents or not, and no matter the reason the content is being blocked. Using techdirt's own definition of censorship, the "report" button is blatant censorship. The hypocrisy is inescapable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 29 Jan 2011 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But according to techdirt, it's censorship no matter who is doing the blocking...
        
        Sources? I'd like to see them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2011 @ 7:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sources? I'd like to see them.
        
        Oh, come on, you're going to take all the fun out of it for old AJ!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 29 Jan 2011 @ 8:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know why everyone treats AJ like a troll. He honestly disagrees, which is more interesting than an entire chorus of the opposite.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2011 @ 9:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I don't know why everyone treats AJ like a troll. He honestly disagrees, which is more interesting than an entire chorus of the opposite."
        
        You're sure that AJ honestly believes that "according to techdirt, it's censorship no matter who is doing the blocking, whether they're government agents or not, and no matter the reason the content is being blocked"? I'm not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 30 Jan 2011 @ 5:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I think he was being facetious, which is a far cry from saying:
        
        your all in the masnick's butt and diont know any thing about this
        
        Which is the kind of thing that our trolls like to say.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 30 Jan 2011 @ 6:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I do think there's some truth to my claim that the "report" button is techdirt censorship, but overall I'm just making a joke. My ":)" in the first post was a clue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 30 Jan 2011 @ 8:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whew!
        
        ^^That was the point of your comment flying over my head. :P
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 30 Jan 2011 @ 8:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rose M. Welch (profile), 29 Jan 2011 @ 12:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Because the poster's link seems to lead to a spam site.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - monkyyy, 29 Jan 2011 @ 1:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    i do the same thing
    
    *clicks insightful and funny on flagged post*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:06am

sit in vs DDOS
"in the end, are they really much more than an online sit in?"

it is different in one significant way. You can't use a 'sit in' to disrupt a company's or the gov'ts internal operations. By definition a sit in prevents the public interaction from happening by clogging up the front office.

But because of the internet housing 'all' operational aspects it is possible to stop Citibank from running its internal banking related functions that a sit in could never hope to do directly.

I would probably say it's closer to back in the POTS modem days, calling a phone number from 1000 other numbers to make sure the data calls between computers are not be able to complete successfully. That would likely constitute a violation of the law wouldn't it?

Not defending the Feds on this, but the situation isn't quite as simple as a 'sit in'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bob V (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:22am
  
  Re: sit in vs DDOS
  I think it can be viewed both ways. There is damages in lost productivity, missed sales, cost of the data, cost of tech support and so on. Also a DDOS doesn't have a public face. If I go to somewhere and see a physical sit in then I see the protest and I am aware that there is some sort of social issue.
  
  If I go to a site that has been DDOS'd then all i get is a error message, but that's all just looking at effectiveness of creating a public awareness.
  
  The total actual monetary damages are probably about the same, if you look at the cost of any police presence, lost sales and everything else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:52am
    
    Re: Re: sit in vs DDOS
    A DDOS attack isn't about public awareness, it's about making the target aware. The target knows instantly that they're being attacked, the public has no idea. Advertising the DDOS is what causes the public awareness. We're at that stage right now with the arrests.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killer_Tofu (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 12:05pm
    
    Re: Re: sit in vs DDOS
    Missed sales are not damages. It is no more damages than me taking my money to buy pizza is damages to the sub shop next door. Can't lose something you never had.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 12:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: sit in vs DDOS
      Missed sales are not damages. It is no more damages than me taking my money to buy pizza is damages to the sub shop next door. Can't lose something you never had.
      
      Tell that to the entertainment industry and their crony judges.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - pixelpusher220 (profile), 29 Jan 2011 @ 7:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: sit in vs DDOS
      this isn't about some customers choosing to go somewhere else. This is about being denied your ability to serve *any* customers.
      
      The larger point is DDOS can attack more types of targets than just a 'sit in' could do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- keiichi969 (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:03am
  
  Re: sit in vs DDOS
  it is different in one significant way. You can't use a 'sit in' to disrupt a company's or the gov'ts internal operations. By definition a sit in prevents the public interaction from happening by clogging up the front office. But because of the internet housing 'all' operational aspects it is possible to stop Citibank from running its internal banking related functions that a sit in could never hope to do directly.
  If Citibank is running its internal services on its outward facing webserver, they NEED to be shutdown for extreme stupidity. Attacking a webserver has minimal impact on a companies internal operations. it merely removes that presence from the web for a short time, sort of like taking up all the seats in a restaurant, or the lobby of an office.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 11:02am
  
  Re: sit in vs DDOS
  I agree with you on this more than Mike. I feel the DDoS is like doing a "sit in" at the mall because you are protesting "Spencers" but the bulk of the people are sitting in the food court at the other end of the mall. Sure you are making a point but you are not making the point you want to get heard by the people you want to hear you.
  Sure, they slowed down BoA, and Citi and paypal, but they not only hurt the company but they hurt the by standers as well. The people who count on access to these places to do business. (Think of people who make a living buying and selling on Ebay. They lose money if they can't access paypal or their consumers cant access paypal). You end up making more enemies than friends that way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- misterdoug (profile), 29 Jan 2011 @ 5:38pm
  
  Re: sit in vs DDOS
  I've been having an online sit-in all day. In fact I've been sitting here online way too long. Time to stretch!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:08am

Legitmize...
I wonder what effect it would have if the attackers applied for and received assembly permits from the appropriate jurisdictions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
space pirate, 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:13am

Bias much?
And exactly how much effort is going toward apprehending those who 'attacked' the wikileaks site? Hmmmm? Not much I suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:55am
  
  Re: Bias much?
  A whole lot more effort than the marginal effort required to initiate the DDOS attack. There are court fees, a right to an attorney, you have to pay the police to go out there and arrest them, you have to pay the judge to try them, the court has other people that get paid (the person typing the transcript, the court officer who hands documents back and forth between the judge and the defendant), you need a plaintiff that needs to get paid, etc...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:56am
    
    Re: Re: Bias much?
    Not to mention the cost of keeping people in jail once they are arrested. Jails cost money too, you need prison guards, you have to feed them, pay for building maintenance, etc...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Bias much?
      (you have to feed the prisoners *)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Bias much?
      errr .... once they are convicted *
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 11:17am
    
    Re: Re: Bias much?
    He pointed out that the police is doing nothing to investigate the attacks on the servers of Wikileaks but is going against anonymous for attacking financial institutions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 11:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Bias much?
      oh, n/m
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2011 @ 4:31am
  
  Re: Bias much?
  And exactly how much effort is going toward apprehending those who 'attacked' the wikileaks site? Hmmmm? Not much I suspect.
  
  Especially if the government itself was involved. For some reason, the government doesn't much like to investigate and prosecute itself. Imagine that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2011 @ 7:59am
  
  Re: Bias much?
  Playing devil's advocate, I can see one simple explanation: the Wikileaks guys did not complain to the police about the DDoS on them, at least one of the Operation Payback targets complained to the police, and the police is not proactive enough to go after any DDoSer without being asked to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2011 @ 9:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Bias much?
    the Wikileaks guys did not complain to the police about the DDoS on them,
    
    Source?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:16am

Amazing
If the FBI spent half the time going after those responsible On Wall St for the meltdown of the United States, the economy would have turned around. When the CEO's of these banks and Corporations that have raped and pillaged this great country know for a fact they will spend the rest of their life in jail, they will stop these corrupt ways and start hiring and investing back into the US. But instead they go after teens???? At least it is quite apparent that the FBI has been bought and paid for. I guess when the agency that is supposed to stop criminals are the criminals themselves, they dont go after those that are making 'donations'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:34am

Haha, love the only comment on the reuters article:
"Has the FBI turned up anything on the DDoS attacks that were launched against Wikileaks when the cables were first released yet?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 9:40am

arrests already happening
i've seen reports on online forums that the FBI is already out there arresting kids in the US as of yesterday
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:14am

While I don't agree with how these attackers are going about resisting governmental abuse, the fact is that the U.S. government has a very long history of oppression and we have a long history of learning to stand up for what we believe, even if that means being jailed. If these people truly believe in what they are doing then arresting them is probably not going to discourage them much from doing it. There is a difference between arresting a robber for robbing a bank and arresting someone for doing something they think is right, robbers typically know that what they are doing is wrong but they're doing it for their own good (or because they perceive it to be for their own interest). These people are acting in what they perceive to be the best interest of society in resisting an overly oppressive government and punishment, or the possibility of being punished, doesn't really do a good job of deterring people from standing up for what they believe is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TimothyAWiseman (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:28am

This is different from a sit in
I am afraid that this is very different from a sit in. In many of the cases, the participants in a sit-in a breaking the law. But there, they do so openly with their identities plain and the risk of being arrested obvious and immediate. To quote Martin Luther King in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, "One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." At least many who have participated in sit ins over the years did precisely that, standing (or sitting) in their own physical person, knowingly risking the legal consequences of their actions.

I do not see that here. This is a situation where I suspect the vast majority of people initiated their part of this, and then moved on to other things in the comfort of their own home. I suspect many of them did not realize that their IP addresses were not protected (and likely some who did took other measures to protect it). They did not even subject themselves to the discomfort of actually having to sit in somewhere away from their own home, much less knowingly and willingly risk the legal consequences.

(I will acknowledge that here they may be charged under harsh anti-hacking laws with long sentences where most participants in sit-ins faced misdemeanors along the lines of disturbing the peace or, in the particular case that led to MLK's letter violating a court order resulting in contempt of court. But I do not think this invalides my point.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:46am
  
  Re: This is different from a sit in
  Perhaps, if they want to make a stronger point, they should send packets with of the packet saying "*** is my name, *** is my address, come arrest me" and put their real addresses. Perhaps if thousands (or maybe tens of thousands) of people do it, the government will realize that
  
  A: arresting one, or a few, of them will not do anything to deter the rest, since all of them are clearly stating that they are willing to be arrested, and proving it with their address.
  
  B: They don't have enough jails to arrest nearly all of them.
  
  and that might actually lead to having a more reasonable government. It can be government by the people for the people where the will of the masses are followed or else the masses will implement an attack and the masses are way too plentiful to all be jailed and so this can help a majority in opposed to a minority. We can literally start demanding laws that we want or organizing mass attacks, with the willingness to be arrested. So what if a small minority of rich tyrants who demand their own way counters with their own attacks, they are a minority and they aren't plentiful enough to implement an attack nearly as worthy of consideration as the much larger masses.
  
  Perhaps in the future something like this could turn into a reasonable protest mechanism. It's difficult to plan a physical march to Congress, since most people live states away, travel is far, and people have to work, and it's too much of an inconvenience for people to initiate and follow through with a physical protest that the government will mostly ignore. Instead, make the government initiate and follow through with the efforts necessary to arrest way too many people than there are cops to arrest and perhaps they will start caving into the masses. Less work for the people to protest, more work for the government to resist, in opposed to what we have now, where the people have to put a lot of effort and cost to protest and the government resists by merely ignoring our protests.
  
  While I previously disagreed with those doing a DDOS attack, I think that if they do it with their name and address in the packets, and the willingness to take the consequences, there is probably nothing wrong with that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:49am
    
    Re: Re: This is different from a sit in
    and, perhaps in the future, we can organize huge DDOS attack protests of people willing to take the consequences of their actions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 11:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is different from a sit in
      (and, as someone else points out, the packets should probably also contain some information about why the attack is being conducted).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re: This is different from a sit in
  I am afraid that this is very different from a sit in. In many of the cases, the participants in a sit-in a breaking the law. But there, they do so openly with their identities plain and the risk of being arrested obvious and immediate. ... I do not see that here. ... their IP addresses were not protected ...
  
  Wait. So, first you claim that they did not expose themselves, and then you claim that they did? That..makes..no..sense. If you're going to be an apologist, you need to do better than that.
  
  I suspect many of them did not realize that their IP addresses were not protected.
  
  I seriously doubt that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:34am

You are exactly right. Those calling it a "sit in" are trying to legitimize these actions by referencing something that is seen by some as noble. Sit ins occur in the open by those willing to be arrested for what they believe in. DDOS attacks are done in secret by cowards. These are cowards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:53am
  
  Re:
  It's a good thing AJ never resorts to personal attacks, otherwise we would just have to point at him, laugh, and stop taking him seriously.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:55am
  
  Re:
  Sit ins once where illegal too.
  
  In my book DDoS a site is a digital sit in, as long as you go there and say exactly what you are doing that is all fine with me, you don't need to like it.
  
  Besides there is nobody hiding their IP's when they are doing those things and there is not enough proxies in the world to cause harm to any big website, so people just can't hide.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 29 Jan 2011 @ 2:16pm
  
  Re:
  So the preference to avoid arrest changes their acts from noble to... What, exactly?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 29 Jan 2011 @ 2:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So the preference to avoid arrest changes their acts from noble to... What, exactly?
    
    You are trying to put words in my mouth. I said that those who participate in sit ins are willing to be arrested for what they believe in. I didn't label those people, but the implication is that they are brave. Then I said that those behind the DDOS attacks act in secret like cowards. Notice that I never said that I personally thought any of them were noble.
    
    So, to your question, the preference to avoid arrest changes their acts from brave to cowardly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2011 @ 7:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Then I said that those behind the DDOS attacks act in secret like cowards.
      
      Yeah, like the cowards that engage in *secret* military operations. If they were *brave*, they wouldn't do them in secret! I understand now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 30 Jan 2011 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, like the cowards that engage in *secret* military operations. If they were *brave*, they wouldn't do them in secret! I understand now.
        
        You don't think military operations should be afforded some secrecy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2011 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't think military operations should be afforded some secrecy?
        
        You don't think protesters should be afforded some secrecy? You sound like one of those authoritarian types that think protesters should all be put in prison (if not shot).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 30 Jan 2011 @ 12:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, you flatter me! :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2011 @ 12:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, to your question, the preference to avoid arrest changes their acts from brave to cowardly.
      
      Stupidity is not a requirement for bravery.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
lux (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:53am

"I agree that the Anonymous attacks were childish and probably counterproductive...By spending so much time, effort and resources in trying to track down some people who were making a statement online, all that officials have done is to give them that much more attention -- which is exactly what they wanted."

Wait...so although these attacks from Anonymous spawned a massive, unnecessary, resource-heavy response from law enforcement, which "is exactly what [Anonymous] wanted", the attacks were childish and unproductive?

Makes so much sense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
im not a security website( those are chicken shits, 28 Jan 2011 @ 12:52pm

@1 @4 @7 *8 @9 @10 @13/14 @16 @17/19 @21 @23/24 @25 @26 @31
@1 No sir you missed the mark. IF the "system" was not so counter productive to the citizenry it is suposed ot serve then such activity would not happen nor exist.

@4 , OH and just what does a strike do or g20 protest do by blocking entry or exit form said companies? SEE response i make to @1.

@7 agreed see the double standard. ITS like the mpaa and there associates DDoSing private torrent sites but when they get attacked its mass arrests WHICH btw when jail is the norm costs tax payers far more then say reducing copyrights and patents would be in first place and thus reduce the level of these protests.

@8 the fbi has been and is being pulled off missing child cases is proof it is not a THINK OF THE CHILDREN issue it is THINK OF THE LAWYERS issue and there yacht building campaigns.

@9 i have taught them all well. There is somehting to be learned form just having patience unto and of itself, for it alone yields the best rewards.

@10 who ever i am i represented a membership of a 1000 two years ago. NOW that is 5000. There are 9000 wanting in. Ironic a video says they are 9000.

@13 you cannot catch on the internet that which no longer is there....

@14 and arresting youth will do what? Bring trust to your regime?

@16 Citibank has been for real hacked before, and that person is known to me but the person will never be known to you. WE whom are at the peak of the mountain are watching.
As a poster on another forum once said. "And the real hackers are watching and what they can do makes this lame and calm". You only need do as you are to make it worse for yourselves.

@17 your kidding me right standing up? Patriot act sound familiar. How many hacker sites are hosted inside the USA.
ZERO. We all left your country ten years ago.

@19 OR it may cause them to learn more and make sure that they can do things properly, then you will have a real problem. Hrmmm...good idea perhaps i'll start educating a few hundred or thousand...OH wait see @10...and in 14 years since we began no member has been arrested for a computer crime in any nation they reside.

@21 you been to a g20 protest lately? the one in that nation of canada had people arrested for no legal reasons, when you start doing that , im a wear a mask too.

@23 i was waiting fo rone such as you, whom btw would whoolly be ok with SONY ROOTKITS, erosion of hte public domain and thus destruction of free knolwedge and culture. WHOM sits silently while the mpaa endorses DDoS's on sites and gets no penalty. THIS ABOVE ALL ELSE IS WHY THEY GET ATTACKED. THOSE WHOM SUPPORT THEM ARE GETTING A MILD TASTE OF IT BACK. FOr ever kid you arrest its costs 100,000 USD/year of incarceration. IF your eocnomy can keep arresting kids for downloading music then buy all means until you have an entire generation in prison that you then have no taxes to collect your system will collapse. ITS is fear that they are not in control and that they can't instill you with fear that is why they really do this.

A real hacker would have wiped the server clean and posted all the servers users data to the public. DOS's are far nicer ways a saying YOUR AN ASSHOLE SMARTEN UP.

@24 perhaps what htey should do is use a few million moron windows 7 computers ina massive bot net and send commands ot that bot net 3-4Kbytes/sec each( so its not noticed)
via proxy chains through countries that hate the usa....BOY that list grows don't it. GOT TO LOVE YOUR COUNTRIES POPULARITY. Keep up the good work lolz.

@25 or in your world were we aren't allowed to think. Aren't allowed to cross a street without a passport. Where in your world we can't learn without paying, can't sing , can't afford to create art or share. Where in your world its all ME ME ME ME ME and MINE MINE MINE. Anonymous asked me to take 50000 hacker files offline and not to put up new ones i agree no more public files. NO sense in allowing the corporates to see and prepare....OH and i'm not hiding the ip is used in this post you can post mike. ITS me and ill turn on my webserver so you can show these people , i mean business. My family is my association. It includes everyone but those that are greedy and selfish.

@26 if you know how terrorists and bikers and gangs work you will know how this has been designed, its cellular nature is why as hte hackers manifesto says, you can get this kid , but you can't get us all.
@31 g20- toronto canada- hundreds were arrested without proper legal authority...so you point sit ins and protests are legal is mooted buy police abusing there power.
WHAT might happen if the next one occurs is MORE people will go not less and if the police try and arrest them they will refuse and then you have a riot. SEE what happened to a bell canada store and why no other ISP's store was affected....look up UBB in canada. YES i live in canada.

I'm tired of replies but anyhow....thought you'd like a response from an actual hacker and one that isn't a script kiddy. That phrase btw is funny because automation of anything you want to do is actually a sign of intelligence that allows one to do more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pete Smith, 28 Jan 2011 @ 2:26pm

Anonymous attacks were childish and probably counterproductive, but, in the end, are they really much more than an online sit in?

True, although in the UK a sit in can amount to trespassing, but that's still civil matter rather than criminal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2011 @ 4:14pm

"I agree that the Anonymous attacks were childish and probably counterproductive, but, in the end, are they really much more than an online sit in?"

You're completely missing the point Mike. If they don't arrest anyone, they won't be able to "prove" anything in court, and won't be able to use that to censor the internet.

They don't go after the kids because it's the right thing to do, they do it because it's part of their agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sam sin, 29 Jan 2011 @ 6:50am

just like the entertainments industries think it is 'ok' to Ddos web sites, without any law enforcement agency going after them or their accomplices, but quickly cry 'criminal activity!' when it happens to them in retaliation! the usual hypocrisy and double standards, backed up by paying governments and courts to do their dirty work, that are too stupid to listen to the very people they are supposed to protect and that put them in 'office' for those reasons in the first place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]