'Restore The 4th' Anti-NSA Activists 'Adopt' The Highway Right Outside NSA's New Utah Datacenter

from the nicely-done dept

We've written about the "Restore the 4th" activist effort to curtail NSA surveillance and "restore" the 4th Amendment a few times. Apparently, the local Restore the 4th group in Utah came up with a hilarious way to get their point across in that state: they "adopted" the highway that runs right by the NSA's infamous new datacenter in Bluffdale Utah.

An organization opposed to surveillance by the National Security Agency has been approved to "adopt" the section of highway running past the Utah Data Center, a move that would place the group’s protest-oriented name on signs outside the spy building.

Restore The Fourth-Utah would also be responsible for picking up litter on the 2-mile stretch of Redwood Road that includes the main entrance to the Utah Data Center and Camp Williams.

Of course, the group sees the task of "picking up litter" as a good opportunity to combine picking up litter with protesting the data center, saying that as they pick up litter, they'll also carry picket signs. The Utah Department of Transportation had a spokesperson give a "please keep us out of this" statement to the press:

"As long as [Restore The Fourth-Utah is] following safety protocol," Gleason said, "we’re happy there are people applying to keep litter off the roads out there."

As for the NSA? Well, that organization gave an even wackier response:

When asked for comment, NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines replied in an email: "Highway adoptions are not a part of NSA’s federal mission."

Nor is spying on Americans, but you know, you do that too...

Filed Under: 4th amendment, adopt a highway, bluffdale, nsa, protest, restore the 4th, utah

Anonymous Indictment Raises Serious Question: Is It Really A CFAA Violation To DDoS A Website?

from the questions dept

Way back in the fall of 2010, we wrote about how it was a really dumb idea for people associating themselves with Anonymous to run a series of DDoS attacks, under the name "Operation Payback," focused on the RIAA, MPAA, US Copyright Office and other websites. The attacks were protesting attempts to take down The Pirate Bay, as well as a variety of other complaints about general acts of copyright maximalism and copyright trolling. As we noted, such attacks do a lot more harm than good. Either way, the feds have finally gotten around to indicting thirteen individuals for somehow participating in that fall spree of DDoS attacks. While the indictment tries to make it out like this is a big conspiracy, it's unclear how connected some of the various attacks are, as it appears (as is frequently the case with Anonymous) that some individuals simply chose some sites to DDoS on their own and announced they were doing it as Anonymous. It's difficult to see a conspiracy when there's no real connection.

That said, there's a much bigger question here. While DDoS attacks can be a nuisance, are they really criminal? In the midst of these attacks, we questioned if they were really criminal acts or more like the equivalent of a sit-in, in which people were disrupting a business for the sake of public protest. In fact, some people arrested for DDoS attacks have been making this claim in court -- and there was even a White House petition asking it to recognize DDoSing as a valid form of protest.

Instead, as the indictment shows, the feds are hitting these thirteen individuals with CFAA violations -- the broad, troubling anti-hacking law that is regularly abused by the feds for any crime that involves a computer. In this case, the focus is on 1030(a)(5)(A) which targets people who:

... knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

But is a DDoS really "damage"? I can see how there's a reasonable argument both for and against that. But I have trouble seeing how, as the feds claim, these DDoS attacks did more than $5,000 in damage to the various sites they took down. Furthermore, you can make an argument that these weren't done "without authorization," because all a DDoS does is point a ton of traffic at a website. If that web server is open to the public, then isn't there authorization? It's just that the web server gets flooded.

Again, I'll make clear that I think DDoS attacks are dumb, counterproductive and immature. But I have trouble seeing how they're criminal acts, that could lead to five years in jail.

Also, there's some oddities, in that one of the lawyers for one of the accused folks claims that he had been working out a settlement, which has now been "scuttled" by the indictment. I imagine that most of the accused will eventually come to some sort of plea bargain deal. The DOJ stacks the deck so that you're often crazy not to plea your way out of these deals. And it's unlikely that any of the individuals will appear particularly sympathetic for their alleged actions here. But I'm still quite troubled by the idea that these actions add up to that much in damage, and a computer hacking crime deserving of significant jail time.

Filed Under: anonymous, cfaa, ddos, protest, sit-in

The Weapons Of The Geek: Putting Anonymous Into Context

from the politics-and-power...-technology-and-anonymity dept

Professor Gabriella Coleman, who has studied hacking culture, Anonymous and a variety of related topics for years, recently published a new paper, entitled Anonymous in Context: The Politics and Power behind the Mask. It's a quick, but very worthwhile read. If you've followed Anonymous for years, you'll probably already be aware of much of what's in the paper, but it does a really nice job running through much of the history of Anonymous, the misconceptions about Anonymous, and frequent (failed) attempts by the press to accurately describe Anonymous. It also does a really nice job discussing the concept of the "weapons of the geek," and how Anonymous is really a fascinating demonstration of how technology is allowing a group of technologically savvy folks to get involved in activism and protest in ways that simply weren't possible before. If you're interested in this stuff (and you should be), go check it out.

Filed Under: activism, anonymous, expression, gabriella coleman, geeks, protest

Angered By The NSA, But Confused By Acronyms, Brazilian Hacker Defaces NASA Websites

from the take-that,-surveillancestronauts! dept

If you're going to go after the world leader in untargeted data collections, you might as well be just as unfocused. After details of the NSA's spying efforts in Brazil drove the president to cancel her trip to the US, some of that anger spilled over to the public. And a certain member of the Brazilian public, one "BMPoc," decided to lash out in the most internet of ways -- by defacing websites linked with the intelligence agency. The only problem was BMPoC was one letter off.

Multiple NASA websites were defaced last week by a Brazilian hacktivist who may have misread the sites' URLs, because he wasn't protesting about the US space agency giving joyrides to inhuman stowaways – he was protesting against NSA spying.

“BMPoC” hit kepler.arc.nasa.gov and 13 other sites with messages protesting against US spying on Brazil, as well as a possible US military intervention in Syria.

Ah, NASA. The non-spy agency whose efforts over the years have resulted in a number of technological advancements we take for granted. NASA is a very, very, VERY outwardly focused agency, which perhaps explains why its internal controls are so lax it's referred to as the "low hanging fruit" of the government website defacement field.

What the hacker lacked in accuracy, he made up for in successful hits and enthusiasm. The following warning graced unsuspecting NASA aficionados for several hours earlier this week.

NASA HACKED! BY #BMPoCWe! Stop spy on us! The Brazilian population do not support your attitude! The Illuminati are now visibly acting!

Obama heartless! Inhumane! you have no family? the point in the entire global population is supporting you. NOBODY! We do not want war, we want peace!!! Do not attack the Syrians.

Coherent, it is not, thanks to the language barrier, a fundamental misunderstanding that all acronyms are not created equal, and the obligatory Illuminati reference. NASA, duly chastened by orders to cease all "spy" and change its unsupported attitude, released the following statement.

"A Brazilian hacker group posted a political message on a number of NASA websites. ... Within hours of the initial posting, information technology staff at the Ames Research Center discovered the message and immediately started an investigation, which is ongoing," he said. "At no point were any of the agency’s primary websites, missions or classified systems compromised."

In other words, the attack was about as harmful as graffiti. Perhaps even safer considering it wasn't scrubbed off the "walls" by a group of low-level criminals putting in community service hours.

Other than the wrong acronym and the Illuminati, BMPoC is absolutely correct. Brazilians do not support the NSA's spying or attitude and most of the world is very definitely not supportive of the US engaging with Syria. (Well, "engaging" by way of bombs, missiles and boots on the ground, anyway.)

If the secret to fighting a successful battle is knowing your enemy, BMPoC is no Sun Tzu (or even Ambrose Burnside, for that matter). On the plus side, website defacing is much more anonymous and less prone to crippling embarrassment than an in-person protest -- especially one that finds the protester a few blocks away from his or her intended target, yelling at equally confused people about actions they never took and things they never said.

Filed Under: brazil, hackers, nasa, nsa, nsa surveillance, protest

Montreal Student Arrested For Posting Photo Of Anti-Police Graffiti To Instagram

from the you-have-a-friend-request-from-Officer-Smith dept

UPDATE: A commenter below has provided a link to coverage of this story by the Globe and Mail which includes more details than the CBC story linked in this post. Apparently, Pawluck had previously posted other photos of anti-police graffiti as well. This additional information doesn't make the actions of the police department any less egregious, but it does explain why they might have an interest in questioning her. In addition, she was also arrested several times during the Montreal demonstrations. Again, this doesn't excuse any overreactions, but it does at least explain why she may have been questioned at length. Her history with the police department makes this investigation about more than one uploaded photo.

If anyone needed any more evidence that police departments are casting a wide surveillance net over social media networks, here's one more story to add to the woeful deluge.

On Wednesday night, news broke that a 20-year-old “supporter of the student movement,” Jennifer Pawluck was arrested in Montreal for posting a picture to Instagram that she took of a graffiti wheat paste illustration that showed Montreal’s police commander Ian Lafrenière with a bloody bullethole in his forehead. According to the CBC, the image was thrown up on a brick wall in the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve neighborhood. And Jennifer Pawluck—not that this even matters—didn’t even draw the anti-cop graphic in the first place.

Further details at CBC's site indicate that the Montreal police are actively monitoring Instagram, or more likely, its new best friend, Facebook.

Jennifer Pawluck was picked up by Montreal police at her home Wednesday, questioned for several hours and then released on a promise to appear in court.

So, this wasn't a case of Pawluck shooting photos of graffiti and being approached by an officer. This would be a posted photo being spotted online and traced back to Pawluck. The surveillance aspect is disturbing enough, but the Montreal police went even further, accusing Pawluck of "criminal harassment against a high-ranking Montreal police officer." All over a photo of artwork she didn't create (or apply to a wall).

The picture depicts Montreal police commander Ian Lafrenière with a bullet hole in his head. Lafrenière was a bit of a lightning rod during last year's riots in Montreal due to his position as head of the Communications Division. While the image is violent and could be perceived as threatening, posting a photo of the graffiti on Instagram is hardly "harassment" in and of itself. As the Vice article points out, there have been plenty of other photos of this particular artwork uploaded to Instagram.

The police (unsurprisingly) have been less than forthcoming as to why Pawluck needed to be questioned for "several hours" about this photo. Here's what the department did have to say:

Spokesman Const. Dany Richer said the concern extends beyond just the posting of the photo, but said he could not go into further details.

“There are circumstances that surrounded the publication of this image, circumstances that we can’t reveal because it is still under investigation,” he said.

This statement is suitably vague with a hint of menace. There may be some "circumstances" surrounding Pawluck's participation in last year's demonstrations. There may also be some "circumstances" surrounding the original artwork, as I would imagine the police are very interested in finding the creator and questioning him or her for several hours. But I cannot see there being "circumstances" surrounding the upload of a photo to a social media site, at least not to the extent that someone gets detained and questioned for several hours and released only with the promise that they will appear in court, all without being charged with any criminal wrongdoing.

She has not been formally charged, but is scheduled to appear in court on April 17.

No charges, and yet the police have prohibited her from contacting Lafrenière (can't imagine why she would want to -- and she states she never has) or coming within one kilometer of the Montreal Police HQ.

This last part is enlightening. It strongly suggests the police department fears the general population, or at least those who photograph (or create) anti-police artwork. There's no other reason the police would need to file a restraining order (so to speak) against a student whose "weapon" is a cell phone with a camera. Unfortunately for Pawluck, the "restraining order" isn't mutually restrictive. I would imagine this won't be her last run-in with Montreal law enforcement. They seem unusually interested in shutting down expression they don't like, and are apparently willing to try to intimidate people into compliance.

Filed Under: canada, criticism, free speech, instagram, jennifer pawluck, photos, protest

Anonymous Launches White House Petition Saying DDoS Should Be Recognized As A Valid Form Of Protest

from the if-you-have-to-ask-what-a-valid-form-of-protest-is... dept

A few years back, we had an interesting discussion over whether or not distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS) could be seen as a valid form of protest -- the modern equivalent of a "sit-in." There are significant similarities between a DDoS and a sit-in. And, we've seen at least one lawyer make the claim that his client was exercising his First Amendment rights when DDoSing a local city government. Law enforcement, of course, wants to take it to the other extreme, seeing DDoS attacks as being a form of hacking, or even a type of terrorist attack.

Slashdot points out that some members of Anonymous have set up a We the People petition on the White House's website, asking the government to recognize DDoS as a valid form of protest.

With the advance in internet techonology, comes new grounds for protesting. Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS), is not any form of hacking in any way. It is the equivalent of repeatedly hitting the refresh button on a webpage. It is, in that way, no different than any "occupy" protest. Instead of a group of people standing outside a building to occupy the area, they are having their computer occupy a website to slow (or deny) service of that particular website for a short time.

(Random aside before I get into the larger discussion: you would think that people posting a petition to the White House would spend at least a little more time proofreading what they write, or getting more input before posting it. While the intent is clear, the typos and grammatical structure of the petition is atrocious.)

It seems unlikely that this petition will get the necessary 25,000 votes. Or that the White House will even care if it does. The problem, as always, is that much of this depends on where you sit as well as your knowledge of technology. You can make a reasonable argument for why a DDoS is just the modern equivalent of a sit-in. But you can also make a reasonable argument for why a DDoS is like hacking a site.

But here's the larger point: When you have to petition the government to get them to tell you what form of protest is "okay," you've probably already lost the battle. And that's part of the larger problem here. It seems clear to me that many of the DDoS attacks done by Anonymous are, quite clearly, done for the purpose of expression. They are trying to make a statement, and it sometimes works (though, it frequently backfires). I'm sympathetic to the claim that it's the modern equivalent of a sit-in, and find it troubling that the government is arguing it's something much, much worse. At the same time, I often think Anonymous' rush to DDoS undermines its larger efforts at times, and simply reinforces in the minds of some that Anonymous is made up of bratty, destructive kids. But, having to ask the government to say your form of expression is legitimate expression suggests that the government has already won.

Filed Under: anonymous, ddos, protest, white house

Wearing V For Vendetta Guy Fawkes Masks Declared Illegal In Dubai

from the self-defeating-actions dept

The evolution of the V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes mask from a clever element in a comic book and film to a meme and a global symbol of online and offline resistance has been quite remarkable. A highlight of that trend was earlier this year when MPs in the Polish parliament donned the masks in protest against ACTA, spurred on by massive street demonstrations against the treaty that had recently been held across Poland.

But if the mask has become a way of empowering and uniting protesters, aligning them with other movements around the world, it also becomes an obvious badge of dissent and rebellion, marking them out as a likely enemy of established power structures. It was thus probably only a matter of time before simply wearing a Guy Fawkes mask became grounds enough for the police to move in, as here:

Police officials in Dubai have warned against wearing a mask that symbolises opposition to state authority during any celebrations connected to National Day and declared it illegal.

Any person found wearing Guy Fawkes masks, also known as "Vendetta masks", risks police questioning as any object or action deemed to be instigating unrest or insulting the UAE is illegal, police officials said.

Of course, this simply strengthens the credentials of anyone wearing such a mask, whether in Dubai or elsewhere. And that, in turn, will encourage others around the world to adopt it as a symbol of protest, probably prompting more governments to declare it as "illegal", which will boost its iconic power yet further.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: dubai, free speech, guy fawkes mask, protest

Apparently Stripping Nude To Protest TSA Search Is Protected By The First Amendment

from the in-oregon-at-least dept

A few months ago, you may have heard about John Brennan, who was going through Portland International Airport, and felt that the TSA screening procedures were the equivalent of harassing him. In response, to protest, he stripped naked... and was promptly arrested for disorderly conduct and indecent exposure. However, a court has now acquitted Brennan by saying that the stripping was an act of public protest, and thus protected by the First Amendment. The judge pointed out that there's already state precedent in Oregon that anti-nudity laws "do not apply in cases of protest."

"It is the speech itself that the state is seeking to punish, and that it cannot do," Circuit Judge David Rees said.

The DA who prosecuted the case is complaining that now anyone arrested for indecent exposure can just claim that it's a protest.

Deputy District Attorney Joel Petersen argued that Brennan only spoke of a protest minutes later. Petersen urged the judge to recognize that distinction, "otherwise any other person who is ever naked will be able to state after the fact" that it was done in protest.

Of course, this now raises the troubling (or appealing, depending on your nature) idea that stripping at the front of the TSA line may become more popular. That said, if you're now... er... itching to disrobe in front of the TSA, it's worth noting that this ruling is specific to Oregon, and who knows how other states might deal with the same issue.

Filed Under: free speech, nudity, protest, search, tsa

Russia Plans Internet Censorship Bill (For The Children!); Russian Wikipedia Blacks Out In Protest

from the stop-censorship dept

Over in Russia, they're preparing some new internet legislation that would censor the internet using the typical bogeymen. The claim from supporters is that the law is to block access to information on drugs, suicide and child porn -- all to protect the children. The way it works is with a giant blacklist, that I'm sure won't be abused at all (yes, that's sarcasm). We're talking about a country that has abused copyright law to go after critics and which has a bit of a... er... reputation for government officials abusing power to get what they want. In fact, some are already pointing out that the wording in the bill is really vague, such that it can be used to block any site dubbed as an "extremist" site.

And it's not just the human-reviewed blacklist that's at issue. The bill will also require "a special automatic system that will block websites containing 'prohibited' information.'" Because I'm sure that'll work even better...

We've noted other Russian legislation in the past, but this bill seems to go a hell of a lot further in creating a massive censorship tool for the Russian government.

The Russian Wikipedia is blacking out its site in protest, reminding many of the SOPA blackouts of Wikipedia in the US, though it's also worth noting that the Italian Wikipedia did a similar blackout even before the big SOPA blackout. It's good to see people speaking out and realizing that they don't have to just accept it when a government sweeps away their rights online. Who knows if this will have much of an impact, but getting more attention on the issue is a good start.

Filed Under: blackout, censorship, protest, russia
Companies: wikipedia

Protestors Give USTR 'Corporate Power Tool Award'; Replace Toilet Paper In Hotel With TPP-TP

from the wow dept

Ron Kirk may believe that he's getting away with something in negotiating the TPP agreement without the public knowing what he's doing, but sooner or later he has to realize that the public isn't going to take it. With the recent TPP negotiations in Dallas, there was (of course) a corporate-sponsored "welcome gala." However, it appears that some protestors infiltrated the event and were able to announce that the USTR Ron Kirk and the other US negotiators had won the 2012 Corporate Power Tool Award. A protestor by the name of David Goodwin commandeered the microphone at the event and announced that he was Git Haversall, of the "Texas Corporate Power Partnership", and was giving the award to Ron Kirk because "The TPP agreement is shaping up to be a fantastic way for us to maximize profits, regardless of what the public of this nation—or any other nation—thinks is right."
The protestors actually came very close to giving the plaque to Kirk himself, but security got in the way at the last second. Somewhere around that point, a bunch of protestors apparently started dancing around and chanting "TPP! TPP! TPP!" You can see much of this in the video below:


Apparently the protestors also successfully replaced much of the toilet paper in the public bathrooms in the hotel with special TP-TPP:


I'm generally of mixed opinions on these kinds of protests. However, seeing as we're dealing with Ron Kirk, who seems to go out of his way to avoid the public concerning TPP and only listen to corporate interests, any method of making it clear to him that the public is unhappy seems worthwhile.

Filed Under: dallas, david goodwin, protest, ron kirk, tpp, ustr