E-Mails Show FCC Made Up DDOS Attack To Downplay The 'John Oliver Effect'
from the disinformation-nation dept
You might remember that when HBO comedian John Oliver originally tackled net neutrality on his show in 2014, the FCC website crashed under the load of concerned consumers eager to support the creation of net neutrality rules. When Oliver revisited the topic last May to discuss Trump FCC boss Ajit Pai's myopic plan to kill those same rules, the FCC website crashed under the load a second time. That's not a particular shock; the FCC's website has long been seen as an outdated relic from the wayback times of Netscape, hit counters, and awful MIDI music.
But then something weird happened. In the midst of all the media attention Oliver was receiving for his segment, the FCC issued a statement (pdf) by former FCC Chief Information Officer David Bray, claiming that comprehensive FCC "analysis" indicated that it was a malicious DDoS attack, not angry net neutrality supporters, that brought the agency's website to its knees:
"Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos). These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host. These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC."
But the FCC's claims were seen as suspect by numerous security experts, who say the crash showed none of the usual telltale signs of an actual DDOS. And reports subsequently emerged indicating that the "analysis" the FCC supposedly conducted never actually occurred. When media outlets began noticing that something fishy was going on, the Trump FCC issued a punchy statement accusing the media of being "completely irresponsible." No evidence was ever provided to journalists or lawmakers that pressured the agency for hard data proving the claims.
Fast forward to this week, and new internal FCC e-mails obtained via FOIA request show that yes, the FCC did routinely try to mislead the public and the press with repeated claims of DDOS attacks that never actually happened:
"The FCC has been unwilling or unable to produce any evidence an attack occurred—not to the reporters who’ve requested and even sued over it, and not to U.S. lawmakers who’ve demanded to see it. Instead, the agency conducted a quiet campaign to bolster its cyberattack story with the aid of friendly and easily duped reporters, chiefly by spreading word of an earlier cyberattack that its own security staff say never happened."
The story is worth a read, and highlights how former FCC CIO David Bray and FCC media relations head Mark Wigfield repeatedly fed false information about the nonexistent attack to reporters, then used those (incorrect) stories to further prop up their flimsy claims about the DDOS:
"Bray is not the only FCC official last year to push dubious accounts to reporters. Mark Wigfield, the FCC’s deputy director of media relations, told Politico: “there were similar DDoS attacks back in 2014 right after the Jon Oliver [sic] episode.” According to emails between Bray and FedScoop, the FCC’s Office of Media Relations likewise fed cooked-up details about an unverified cyberattack to the Wall Street Journal.
The Journal apparently swallowed the FCC’s revised history of the incident, reporting that the agency “also revealed that the 2014 show had been followed by DDoS attacks too,” as if it were a fact that had been concealed for several years. After it was published, the Journal’s article, authored by tech reporter John McKinnon, was forwarded by Bray to reporters at other outlets and portrayed as a factual telling of events. Bray also emailed the story to several private citizens who had contacted the FCC with questions and concerns about the comment system’s issues."
The story isn't going to get much mainstream traction thanks to numerous other instances of cultural idiocy we're all currently soaking in, but it's fairly amazing all the same. In short, the FCC appears to have completely concocted a fake DDOS attack in a ham-fisted effort to try and downplay the massive public opposition to its extremely-unpopular policies.
Of course that's pretty standard behavior for an agency that also blocked a law enforcement inquiry into fraud during the public comment period, likely also an effort to downplay massive public opposition to the repeal. It's also pretty standard behavior from a Trump administration that enjoys using bullshit to distract from the fact that countless policies (like repealing net neutrality) run in stark, violent contrast to the admin's "populist" election message.
This isn't likely to be the end of this story, and more details are likely to surface in the looming lawsuits against the FCC attempting to restore net neutrality.
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: ajit pai, david bray, ddos, fcc, john oliver, lies, net neutrality, public comments
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Government officials lying.
Question: Do they ever tell the truth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real Story
A left-wing comic has achieved offhand what foreign powers have failed to accomplish with concerted intent funded by nation-state resources.
Crack a bottle and raise a toast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real Story
Being funny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Real Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Real Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Real Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Real Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Real Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Real Story
Even if it was: So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Real Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Real Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Real Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Real Story
And even if that is true, so what? Net Neutrality still matters, the public overwhelmingly supports it, and Pai wanted to get rid of it. These are all indisputable facts. And I watched Oliver's piece (both actually) on NN, nowhere in there did I see any factual errors.
So, once again that leaves you with a big fat nothing burger of a statement.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like they buy into the "citizens are enemy combatants out to get you" delusion almost as hard as certain police agencies do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
political will
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: political will
You should be informed before wasting time that your efforts here will be futile. The minion even writes: "The story isn't going to get much mainstream traction". Techdirt's niche is the irrelevant, and often already over by time re-written.
But enjoy, while it lasts. -- Just watch out for zombies! About half of "accounts" here have highly ODD gaps of three to seven years, so you may well be responding to astro-turfing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: political will
How can you both hate this site and keep coming back to it? Is that how you tell yourself “I’m alive”? I mean, really, is this what keeps you from downing a bottle of sleeping pills and waiting for the inevitable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
9 years here and your legacy is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: political will
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOT probative: "agency conducted a quiet campaign to bolster"
**AND SO? Was ZERO effect on the "net neutrality" decision in any event!** -- As I wrote way back, even assuming all you say is true, comments still were / are not binding on decisions!
But, hey, if makes you 'dirters happy to re-hash this yet again, must be literally twenty pieces by now, that's FINE with me! It's just Typical Techdirt: LAME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That fact pushes the argument in favor of “the DDOS never happened”. Why openly lie about facts that other people could verify?
You can go on believing that a fake DDOS cooked up by the FCC to undercut the public opposition to the repeal of Network Neutrality had “no effect” on either the vote to repeal or the discussion surrounding that vote. You’d be wrong, but hey, it’s your right to be wrong.
Do better. Go get a Wordpress blog and do Techdirt better than Techdirt does. If you hate Techdirt this much and you know it will not change to suit your sensibilities and politics and high standards, go outdo it and show them how the fuck things should be done. But for your own sake, stop coming here if you hate the site that much; your posts come off as a form of self-harm akin to wrist-cutting or alcoholism or watching reality TV all day. Get yourself some professional help, man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT probative: "agency conducted a quiet campaign to bolster"
"Neither re-writer nor source have ANY evidence that was not DDOS..."
That's the whole point, there's no evidence that anything happened. Are you seriously suggesting it's up to everyone else to disprove the FCC's DDOS claim? Do you not understand how the burden of proof works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NOT probative: "agency conducted a quiet campaign to bolster"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was blisteringly obvious from the get-go, but it's nice to get confirmation.
So what are the legal ramifications of this? The FCC lied about a DDoS attack to downplay the size of the public response, kept records proving that it lied, and then fought FOIA requests for said records.
There are numerous court challenges to the Title II repeal. These emails look an awful lot like the sort of thing that will appear with the word "Exhibit" on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is something I never understood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is something I never understood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about a little fact-checking
A couple of key points: Dell Cameron, the Gizmodo troll who manufactured the story, lied when he claimed to have reached out to Bray.
There as either a DDoS attack or such incompetent use of the comment system API as to mimic one.
Taking Gigi Sohn's technical analysis of the 2014 DDoS attack as gospel is about as absurd as counting on Bode to deliver something like straight reporting; just not in the person's skill set.
But keep on nurturing your conspiracy theories, that's what Techdirt is for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about a little fact-checking
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about a little fact-checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
Oh, you mean like this: Proof that Dell Cameron and Bodey McBodeface are lying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
Works as expected? You know, there's a Rick Astley YouTube video, “Never Gonna Give You Up”. Awhile ago I discovered that linking to that video will put your post straight into the automod queue. Not that surprising, if you think about it.
So how do you check whether direct-to-the-automod-queue works as expected — on preview?
The url is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
Makes sense he'd be such a fan of Prenda Law. How's that going, by the by? Paul Hansmeier needs your funds!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
What it does do is hold some links in a spam filter, especially from users who have been reported for either spamming or trolling a number of times. If you're not doing either, the link will usually be approved. It's happened to me sometimes, I just don't whine like an idiot when I'm informed it's being held for review.
I'd go back to some of those "censored" links you've posted in the past. I'd be willing to bet they're visible now. But, hey, if you want to claim a working spam filter is deliberate censorship, you've confirmed you have the same knowledge of running a web forum as you do about NN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about a little fact-checking
Please offer proof of your claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking
Also, you can't offer as proof more statements from the guy we all think is lying and claim it proves him right. You have to have evidence to back up his claims, and you both have none.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about a little fact-checking
or: "I don't like this blog post. Go read another blog post I happen to agree with! (but won't link to because I don't know how the internet works)." You're really desperate to not get refuted with facts to disprove your ideas yet again, aren't you?
"There as either a DDoS attack or such incompetent use of the comment system API as to mimic one."
Can you rewrite that in legible English, please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about a little fact-checking
You mean the one written by the guy we are all accusing of lying to us? Oh yeah, we'll absolutely believe what he says, because that makes sense. Why would I believe someone who I believe to be lying who can't even provide proof that he isn't lying? Talk about circular reasoning.
Regardless of that, I did read it. Nowhere in there does he actually say it was "absolutely, 100% a DDoS attack, and here's the proof". In actuality he said this:
Oh, you mean like form letters people can fill out and have one organization submit them via API on their behalf, which is completely legal and valid? That kind of "odd" behavior?
So basically Bray is admitting that it very well could have been a bunch of people filling out form letters and those organizations trying to submit them all at once. Your argument is evaporating like mist in sunshine.
So basically what you're saying is the FCC's comment system is so borked that it can't handle a paltry flood of comments, compared to the traffic that a lot of other similarly sized websites get. Because, let's be clear here, 1) there was no DDoS attack, 2) the onus of using an API correctly is not on the user, it is on the developer of the API to make sure it's designed in such a way that it either can't be used incompetently or can do some basic error catching/correction. Congratulations, you just called Bray and the FCC incompetent.
Ad hom attack, no facts to support either assertion. But for the sake of argument, since you're saying we shouldn't believe an adviser to the FCC, I guess that means we shouldn't believe a word you say either, doesn't it Richard?
Well, considering you can't do anything but lie, the truth must seem like a conspiracy theory to you.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about a little fact-checking
What's that again Richard? Definitely a DDoS was it?
Oh wait, what's this?
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/08/ajit-pai-admits-fcc-lied-about-ddos-bla mes-it-on-obama-administration/
Oh my stars and garters! You mean the FCC actually and deliberately lied and there was NO DDoS attack? I'm shocked! (Not really)
Once again you prove to everyone you are nothing but a liar and industry shill. It would seem you no longer have any viable legs to stand on. Which, it seems you realize given your lack of posts recently. Either that or you are far too busy trying to damage control for the flaming mess that is Pai's FCC.
Do try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bray
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bray
…Wyatt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bray
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bray
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bray
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bray's post
It looks something like this: medium[dot]com/@davidbray/while-i-am-currently-executive-director-for-the-people-centered-internet-c oalition-previously-four-93ce38f272e
The Gizmodo post is quite long and very confused, as one would expect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bray's post
Sorry, I don't read things that people with such playground mindsets take as fact.
"The Gizmodo post is quite long and very confused, as one would expect."
But, you won't detail why nor refute any point here, just enlessly demand someone reads another person's words while participating in kindergarten name-calling that would embarrass my girlfriend's 6 year old daughter.
Are you really stupid enough to think that this is a compelling debate tactic? Once again, no wonder you fail at NN arguments here, you're not ever capable of presenting yourself as an adult with original thoughts, let alone access to facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bray's post
I did.
Saw that and read it too.
Actually, the Gizmodo story is a total of 2005 words in length. Bray's Medium post 2229 words in length. But I would absolutely agree with you that Bray's post is very long winded and confused as he can't even seem to get his own story straight and has to assure the readers multiple times that he is "just as concerned" about NN and people being able to have their voice heard as the rest of us. Still want to say the Gizmodo story is "quite long and confused"?
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bray's post
Oh and would you like at that, turns out Bray was nothing but a bald-faced liar.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/08/ajit-pai-admits-fcc-lied-about-ddos-bla mes-it-on-obama-administration/
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
..."awful MIDI music"?
What did you use to make your Geocities page pop, Mr. Fancy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They will not be held accountable, they will do it again, they might run some idiot out as the fall guy & he'll probably land at Sinclair in a nice cushy job.
They lie to us so often, they have started to believe the lies & support others lies as long as it helps them 'win'. Pity they don't give a shit about the losers... who end up paying the bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
okay so here's the million dollar set of questions.
How legal is it to purposely, willfully, and blatantly mislead not only the public, but also lawmakers, and the DoJ on such a bi-partisan issue?
How can the FCC actually defend against this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a run down
Check out my story for the actual, you know, boring facts:
FOIA Inquiry on FCC DDoS Attacks Comes up Empty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a run down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a run down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a run down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's a run down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a run down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a run down
And no, I won't follow spam to whatever shitty blog you write. Make your argument here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's a run down
Better yet, he can keep it on his shitty blog and get over his quaint fixation with Techdirt and Ars Technica articles about net neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here's a run down
Oh well, at least if he's trolling for clicks it would explain his behaviour and ignorance to some degree, unlike the anonymous ones who don't even have that bare excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's a run down
Makes you wonder why he bothers here. One common part of the Techdirt troll screed is that Techdirt is a "libtard" site with, if out_of_the_blue is to be trusted, only 27 visitors from Bangladesh. If so, it begs the question why the fact Techdirt exists puts such a twist in Dick's pantyhose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's a run down
Amusingly, I did a quick search to see if he's been commenting on other sites I visit semi-regularly. I didn't find much (assuming he always uses the same handle), but I do see him being cited as a "reliable" source occasionally on The Register by none other than Andrew Orlowski, possibly the most openly trolling tech "journalist" I've ever had the misfortune of reading. If that doesn't tell you everything, I'm not sure what can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a run down
Trying to do some damage control for your ISP masters, eh Richard?
Your entire "article" doesn't say anything that TD's, Gizmodo's, or Bray's articles don't already say, in fact, most of it is copied and pasted from those articles (and you harp on TD for re-hashing old news). And your "proof" is to quote Bray's post (the guy everyone thinks is lying) who doesn't give any evidence or proof other than to say "I did a quick analysis". Ok, where's the official documents, logs, records, ANYTHING that proves him right. What's that? None? Huh, go figure.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a run down
Oh and here's an official story showing the FCC lied till the cows came home and there was no DDoS.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/08/ajit-pai-admits-fcc-lied-about-ddos-bla mes-it-on-obama-administration/
But you know, these are just boring facts. Something you obviously can't be bothered with.
Nice try but no cigar.
Try again Richard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is anyone else surprised he thinks that fake DDoS attacks should be totally legitimate too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People, please calm down
It was only temporarily unavailable to the public, because the FCC folks were so busy entering comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on Karl, just say it -- "the Obama FCC"
But no such luck. Karl Bode's record of grammatical inconsistency remains ... consistent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come on Karl, just say it -- "the Obama FCC"
The tactics you guys are being reduced to is extraordinarily pathetic, even by your own low standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gov's Playbook, Chapter 3: The distraction of destruction.
Hmmmmm.... sounds like its time for a national crisis, or a declaration of war, or a terrorist attack on a public space, once again.
Gotta derail these looming investigations somehow ...
Amazing how easy it is to distract the public inquiry into government misdeeds by simply blowing up a few buildings, killing a few hundred civilians, or sending troops off to some tiny third world country for a highly televised war-show.
Wonder what kind of false crisis they'll use this time .... they'll need a biggie - this criminal administration has a ton of illegal shit to sweep under the public rug and needs to do a massive "look over there" scam real soon.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revolution!
When the fuck does the guillotine become a legit option? Because this betrayal of citizens by government at all levels is happening way too frequently for my tastes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revolution!
When the fuck does the guillotine become a legit option? Because this betrayal of citizens by government at all levels is happening way too frequently for my tastes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Revolution!
Hell mon, you aint seen nothing yet.
This situation cannot get any better until the public realizes the US has been conquered by its own wealthiest citizens, and demands a return to the rule of honest law, or revolts and puts the tyrants to the stake.
It will however continue to get worse. That is guaranteed by the simple fact that the billionaires in power have gotten away with every scam they've tried so far. There is no reason for these Fascists to consider anything but escalation of the program.
The beauty of being super rich is that, should your home nation become bankrupt due to your machinations, every other nation on earth is still eager to invite you over to stay as long as you like.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reposting repost re: DDOS proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]