DailyDirt: Swatting Is Not A Harmless Prank

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

What do people like to do with their free time? Most people probably enjoy doing normal things like reading, surfing the web, watching TV, playing sports, or playing video games. And then there are some who apparently like "swatting" -- a potentially deadly prank where phone hackers make emergency calls reporting violent crimes, life-threatening hostage situations, etc., while spoofing their caller IDs to make it seem like the calls are coming from their target's phone number. Unfortunately, for the targeted victims, this means heavily armed police SWAT teams descending on their homes, sometimes breaking down doors and bursting into their homes. Here are a few eye-opening stories about swatting.

• One of the best phone hackers out there might be a guy named "Li'l Hacker," who happens to be blind and started "phone phreaking" when he was just 14. What started as an "innocent" hobby turned bad when he started associating with a gang of phone hackers led by an ex-con. [url]
• Security reporter Brian Krebs may have been one of the first journalists to have been the target of a swatting. Having reported about hacking crimes for over a decade, Krebs was used to being the target of attacks. His website is frequently disrupted by DDoS attacks. But this time, at least a dozen police officers showed up at his door with pistols, shotguns, and assault rifles pointed at him. [url]
• Even celebrities can't escape swatting. Victims have included Tom Cruise, Clint Eastwood, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Selena Gomez, Justin Timberlake, Russell Brand, Rihanna, and Chris Brown, just to name a few. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: attacks, brian krebs, phone hacks, phreaking, police, prank, swat team, swatting

Anonymous Hacks US Sentencing Commission Website, Grabs Sensitive Files And Demands Legal Reform

from the also-does-stuff-with-Asteroids-and-the-Konami-code-because-it-can dept

The discussion begun by Aaron Swartz's suicide continues, prompting activity all around the internet. Overzealous prosecution of an outdated law, coupled with this tragedy, has led to hackathons, proposed legislation and criticism of the methods employed by Carmen Ortiz. This past weekend, Anonymous added its two-cents worth in its own particular idiom.

The action began Friday night when Anonymous took down the U.S. Sentencing Commission website, demanding reform of the justice system and threatening to expose a large number of files "secured" from the website. A very long statement of purpose accompanied this hack, beginning with these paragraphs.

Citizens of the world,

Anonymous has observed for some time now the trajectory of justice in the United States with growing concern. We have marked the departure of this system from the noble ideals in which it was born and enshrined. We have seen the erosion of due process, the dilution of constitutional rights, the usurpation of the rightful authority of courts by the "discretion" of prosecutors. We have seen how the law is wielded less and less to uphold justice, and more and more to exercise control, authority and power in the interests of oppression or personal gain.

We have been watching, and waiting.

Two weeks ago today, a line was crossed. Two weeks ago today, Aaron Swartz was killed. Killed because he faced an impossible choice. Killed because he was forced into playing a game he could not win -- a twisted and distorted perversion of justice -- a game where the only winning move was not to play.

Anonymous calls this takedown a "symbolic gesture," aimed at the home of federal sentencing guidelines, which it calls out for advancing "cruel and unusual" punishment, a clear violation of the 8th amendment. The collective also claims it has compromised several other government sites and obtained sensitive files, which it will start releasing to the press in "heavily redacted" form, unless its demands are met.

However, in order for there to be a peaceful resolution to this crisis, certain things need to happen. There must be reform of outdated and poorly-envisioned legislation, written to be so broadly applied as to make a felony crime out of violation of terms of service, creating in effect vast swathes of crimes, and allowing for selective punishment. There must be reform of mandatory minimum sentencing. There must be a return to proportionality of punishment with respect to actual harm caused, and consideration of motive and mens rea. The inalienable right to a presumption of innocence and the recourse to trial and possibility of exoneration must be returned to its sacred status, and not gambled away by pre-trial bargaining in the face of overwhelming sentences, unaffordable justice and disfavourable odds. Laws must be upheld unselectively, and not used as a weapon of government to make examples of those it deems threatening to its power.

Threats or no threats, the government took the USSC site offline and restored it to working order by Saturday... at which point it was hacked a second time by Anonymous. This time the hackers weren't screwing around. Instead of a simple vandalization, the entire site was turned into an interactive game of Asteroids.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission website has been hacked again and a code distributed by Anonymous "Operation Last Resort" turns ussc.gov into a playable video game.

Visitors enter the code, and then the website that sets guidelines for sentencing in United States Federal courts becomes "Asteroids."

Shooting away at the ussc.gov webpage reveals an image of Anonymous. The trademark Anonymous "Guy Fawkes" face is comprised of white text saying, "We do not forgive. We do not forget."

The code that turned the site "interactive" is very familiar to gamers.

ussc.gov --> enter Konami code (with cursor keys) ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A <Enter> ---> CAEK(repeat for NyanCat powers...) #opLastResort

— OpLastResort (@OpLastResort) January 27, 2013

The hack/game proved extremely popular, so Anonymous set up a mirror at another compromised site, miep.uscourts.gov (US Probation Dept.). At the time of writing this, both sites are down, suggesting the government has taken both sites offline until they can be "safely" restored.

Will these takedowns have any noticeable effect on those Anonymous is trying to reach? Most likely, no. Hacking a government website just makes it easier for those prosecuting hackers to make their case. Stewart Baker at The Volokh Conspiracy suggests that these actions do more harm than good to the collective's stated aim.

The exploit is probably counterproductive too. Apart from turning those who want reform of computer crime law into the allies of lawbreakers, Anonymous has substantively hurt the case for amending the CFAA. Heavy criminal penalties are entirely appropriate for people who hack a Supreme Court Justice’s account and disclose personal secrets. But it’s not easy to redraft the CFAA so it reflects the difference between Swartz and the Anonymous hackers, at least not without relying on precisely the prosecutorial discretion that the Swartz prosecutors misused.

Finally, I wonder if this incident won’t affect the Supreme Court’s approach to cybercrime issues. As Frank Rizzo once said, a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. If that’s true, every time Anonymous mugs one of the Justices in cyberspace, it could be making the Court just a little less enthusiastic about limiting the tools the government uses to deter computer crime

In his take, Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice takes issue with Baker's statement regarding the enthusiasm level of the courts.

Not that any of the justices have shown much enthusiasm up to now, but the alternative to bad isn't necessarily good. Things can always get worse.

While Baker argues that Anonymous makes things that much tougher for justice reform, Greenfield argues that hacking the USSC is especially pointless, considering how irrelevant the Sentencing Commission is at this point in time.

The first indication that Anonymous made a left turn when it should have made a right was when it picked the United States Sentencing Commission website to show its might. Nobody noticed, because, well, nobody cares about the USSC anymore.

Had this happened a generation ago, it might have meant something. Yesterday, it likely evoked a chuckle and a face palm. Post Booker and some actual crack reforms, it was a big nothing.

Yes, Anonymous is correct in its observation that the so-called "justice system" in the US is a corrupt and bloated entity, prone to abusing its power and control. But the USSC isn't the problem, not because it's the "good guys," but because the damage it can do is easily outweighed by the public's keen interest in sabotaging its own freedoms.

So you guys can hack an outlier agency that has drifted into relative irrelevance. Got it. Have a nice day. The USSC is symbolic of nothing other than government bloat. The guidelines don't enable prosecutors to cheat citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Citizens do that to each other. We do it each time we elect a legislator who calls for tougher laws. We do it each time we demand the creation of a new crime because of the tragic death of a child. We do it whenever we elevate safety over freedom. And that's what Americans do...

By taking out the USSC website, you disturbed nothing while annoying the government. When the head of the FBI cybersecurity squad gets done laughing, he's going to find someone else to prosecute. It may not be one of you, but it will be someone, or more likely, a whole gang of people with computers. And they have guns. Pissing them off over nothing isn't effective. It's just begging for retaliation, and the government has no sense of humor (or irony).

As much as we sometimes want an entity like Anonymous to strike back at wrongdoers, the likelihood of this action (especially this one) resulting in any positive change remains near zero. Doubly frustrating is the fact that going through the "proper channels" to effect change has the same low odds. The hope here is that this action keeps the focus on the questionable methods and bad laws that resulted in the prosecution Aaron Swartz's and many others.

Considering there are many politicians (and many private contractors) that badly want their worst cyberwar fears to be true, this recent bout of hacktivism may give them all the ammo they want to push damaging legislation through while placing a badly needed CFAA update on the back burner.

Filed Under: anonymous, attacks, cfaa, ddos, protests

In Response To Aaron's Death: Don't Take Down, Build Up; Don't Attack, But Share

from the it's-what-he-would-have-wanted dept

I've already written some basic thoughts on the death of Aaron Swartz, and I know that more will be forthcoming, but within the justifiable anger out in the world over this turn of events, there are some reports suggesting that DDoS attacks took down MIT's website and possibly other sites (though, reports of the Justice Department's website being taken down were wrong). This happened soon after MIT put out a statement about Swartz, following the statement from Swartz's family that pointed a finger directly at MIT.

The family had said:

“Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy. It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s office and at MIT contributed to his death.”

In response, MIT's statement, by president L. Rafael Reif, was actually somewhat self-reflective, admitting that the university needed to look closely at its own role in the situation, and appointing professor Hal Abelson -- someone quite knowledgeable and active in many of the same causes as Aaron -- to lead the investigation.

To the members of the MIT community:

Yesterday we received the shocking and terrible news that on Friday in New York, Aaron Swartz, a gifted young man well known and admired by many in the MIT community, took his own life. With this tragedy, his family and his friends suffered an inexpressible loss, and we offer our most profound condolences. Even for those of us who did not know Aaron, the trail of his brief life shines with his brilliant creativity and idealism.

Although Aaron had no formal affiliation with MIT, I am writing to you now because he was beloved by many members of our community and because MIT played a role in the legal struggles that began for him in 2011.

I want to express very clearly that I and all of us at MIT are extremely saddened by the death of this promising young man who touched the lives of so many. It pains me to think that MIT played any role in a series of events that have ended in tragedy.

I will not attempt to summarize here the complex events of the past two years. Now is a time for everyone involved to reflect on their actions, and that includes all of us at MIT. I have asked Professor Hal Abelson to lead a thorough analysis of MIT's involvement from the time that we first perceived unusual activity on our network in fall 2010 up to the present. I have asked that this analysis describe the options MIT had and the decisions MIT made, in order to understand and to learn from the actions MIT took. I will share the report with the MIT community when I receive it.

I hope we will all reach out to those members of our community we know who may have been affected by Aaron's death. As always, MIT Medical is available to provide expert counseling, but there is no substitute for personal understanding and support. With sorrow and deep sympathy,

L. Rafael Reif

I am sure that many will continue to criticize MIT for its actions in this mess -- and some criticism may be well deserved. That said, MIT's response here is a step forward -- and hopefully it creates real change in how MIT handles such things in the future. I think that there are many, many, many reasons to be furious about the Justice Department's actions in the Swartz case (and I felt that long before Swartz's death). However, a DDoS attack on MIT or the DOJ or anyone else is exactly the wrong message to send concerning Aaron. Yes, I was just defending the use of DDoS as a form of expression and protest, but this is not the kind of protest that serves Aaron's memory well.

Aaron -- more than almost anyone else -- did stuff. He built stuff and he created change. Not by taking things down, but by building them up. Not by attacking, but by sharing and informing and educating.

Aaron's memory needs to be preserved, and his death will hopefully be a catalyst for many changes -- to the way the government prosecutes people, to the way computer hacking laws are used today, to the way copyright laws are used and much, much more. But the way to do that is to do something proactive and positive. The organization Aaron founded is called Demand Progress, and that's what we should be doing now.

We should be looking for ways to continue Aaron's work, to build, to share, to create and to create change through sheer will of knowing what's right.

So, don't participate in attacks or takedowns. Look for ways to build something up. Create efforts to change problematic laws like the CFAA or copyright law. Look for ways to share knowledge and expand our ability to learn and to educate each other. Create ways for people to speak out and to enable everyone to do more.

That is the legacy that I believe Aaron would have wanted. It will always be impossible to fill the void that Aaron's death has left in its wake -- but if it inspires each of us to do a little more, to create some positive change, to truly demand progress in the face of ridiculous odds, then that will be the testament to all that Aaron did for the world.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, activism, attacks, ddos, hacks

Harvey Weinstein's 'Hang 'Em First' Approach To Piracy Hits All The Wrong Suspects

from the research-not-his-strong-suit? dept

I've heard enough stories about the legendary film producers Harvey and Bob Weinstein to recognize that they're known as being characters around Hollywood -- and sometimes are known to make some quirky decisions. In a recent edition of Kevin Smith's Smoviemakers podcast, they discuss how the Weinsteins knew they had a terrible movie in Dracula 2000 but released it anyway because "it's called Dracula 2000."

So, somehow it doesn't surprise me that Harvey Weinstein recently complained publicly about piracy -- but seemed confused and ignorant about who to blame. His main target: the tech industry providing him all the tools to get into the 21st century. But, he seems determined to stay in the past -- and live in a world of ignorance. It's as if he's heard a few of the MPAA talking points, as well as some of the more hysterically misguided anti-piracy rants online... and synthesized them into the ultimate in clueless rants:

Hollywood power player Harvey Weinstein has urged Big Content to take a “hang ‘em first and talk about it later” stance when it comes to piracy.

Right, because when you're ignorant and pointing the finger at innocent players, it's always better to kill first and realize you're wrong later.

Keynoting at the BFI London Film Festival, he railed against the online industries' approach to piracy, and slammed Apple and Google for “getting paid, not the actors.”

On what is he basing this? Both Apple and Google offer the ability to pay for movies, via deals negotiated with Hollywood. If the actors aren't getting paid -- then perhaps it's the studios' fault, with their fun tricks and Hollywood accounting, whereby they set up neat shell companies, who the studios charge huge fees to, so that their movies are never technically "profitable" and residuals never have to be paid. It couldn't be that, could it? Perhaps the reason actors aren't getting paid is because the studios are taking the money that Google and Apple are giving them... and playing accounting tricks.

"I think we are being done a massive disservice by these companies," he said.

Let's see, these are two companies who have built the key pieces of the modern distribution system that allows them to better deliver movies to consumers, including with unique and new monetization options? That's a disservice? Well, I'll grant you, perhaps Harvey's right that they've done a disservice to studio bosses in that they've disrupted them. The business of the studio used to be to act as the gatekeeper on promotion, distribution and monetization of movies. But Apple, Google and others are changing things so that the studio heads have less control over the market -- and the filmmakers can actually go direct. No wonder he hates them.

“I think after the [US Presidential] election we need to rally filmmakers, content providers and musicians around the world as long as these companies [continue to make content available] under the guise of free Internet.”

Good luck with that. Besides, he seems very confused in thinking that it's Apple and Google that are somehow broadcasting his content for free. That's not the case, and you'd think someone with more than two seconds of experience with the internet would recognize that.

“I love it when these Internet dudes say to me, hey man; we just want to be 'content neutral.' Next time, I'll say sure, I'll get my tie dye shirt and come and sit in your billion dollar mansion in San Francisco or Silicon Valley for a while, soak it up," he quipped.

Really no need to comment on that one. He then praised France's HADOPI three strikes law and pretended to prove a point.

"If an Internet company steals content, they shut it down. And let me tell you, Apple France, Yahoo France or Google France, none of them have gone out of business."

Of course, that's not true at all. He's displaying his near total ignorance (yet again). All Hadopi does is send individuals (not companies) accused (not convicted) of uploading unauthorized content, letters warning them that their connections could be cut off (and after three of these, they can lose service). So, no, they don't "shut down" an internet company. It has nothing to do with that at all. Also, it's been a colossal failure. Even after Hadopi fudged the numbers to make their results look better there has been no increase in sales and the current government has declared Hadopi to be a failure and wants to cut its funding.

The fact that it has done nothing to increase sales is the key point. Since Harvey was talking about "getting actors paid" (a red herring, of course, but...), you'd think that he'd be a lot more concerned about whether or not the 3 strikes policy actually worked to get more people paid. It hasn't. So, if his concern is getting actors paid, Hadopi hasn't actually helped.

There are plenty of discussions to be had about how to deal with whatever challenges and opportunities the film business currently faces. But this wasn't one of them. Pointing the finger and blaming tech companies, even though they're not doing what he claims they're doing -- and then praising a failed law that hasn't done what he thought it had done -- is not productive at all. It just makes him look out of touch.

Filed Under: attacks, harvey weinstein, piracy
Companies: apple, google, yahoo

Cybersecurity Bill: Protecting Us From Attacks... Or Keeping Our Own Attacks Secret?

from the seems-quite-likely dept

We've been discussing the fight in the Senate over the latest version of the Cybersecurity Act. One of the things we mentioned is that, at 211-pages, it's quite likely there are a ton of little "easter egg" gems in there that the public doesn't want or need, but which we'll be stuck with -- and only discover way down the road. Paul Rosenzweig, over at the Lawfare Blog, may have turned up one of them, in trying to understand Section 706(d), which reads:

(d) DELAY OF NOTIFICATION AUTHORIZED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, NATIONAL SECURITY, OR HOMELAND  SECURITY PURPOSES.—No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in any Federal or Statecourt against any entity, and any such action shall be dismissed promptly, for a failure to disclose a cybersecurity threat indicator if—

(1) the Attorney General or the Secretary determines that disclosure of a cybersecurity threat indicator would impede a civil or criminal investigation and submits a written request to delay notification for up to 30 days, except that the Attorney General or the Secretary may, by a subsequent written request, revoke such delay or extend the period of time set forth in the original request made under this paragraph if further delay is necessary;

(2) the Secretary, the Attorney General, or the Director of National Intelligence determines that disclosure of a cybersecurity threat indicator would threaten national or homeland security and submits a written request to delay notification, except that  the Secretary, the Attorney General, or the Director,may, by a subsequent written request, revoke such delay or extend the period of time set forth in the original request made under this paragraph if further delay is necessary.

What's odd about this? Well, it suggests that it says that companies might not get in legal trouble if they don't disclose info. But, as we're constantly reminded, the whole point of the info sharing from companies in this bill is that it's voluntary. So there wouldn't be any cause of action generally when they choose not to share. But, as Rosenzweig thinks through it, there is another scenario where this could come into play: if a company wanted to share info but was stopped -- perhaps because that info implicated the US government itself:

I suppose there is another possibility as well – that they might want to stop temporarily the sharing of CTI when the threat being disclosed is one that has been created by .... Well, NSA. In fact, if you believe that, then the reason the government so much wants to be at the center of CTI sharing is not just to protect the public but also to protect its own methods.

This actually makes a fair amount of sense. Remember, the only two serious cases of digital attacks that we know of -- Stuxnet and Flame -- both appear to have originated from US government officials, and both eventually got out when security firms discovered their existence, and tried to make sense of the malware. So, perhaps part of the "urgency" in trying to pass this bill is to help silence researchers who discover what other malware the US government has put out itself!

Filed Under: attacks, cybersecurity, information sharing, nsa, privacy, secrecy

Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman

from the wow dept

Wow. Just... wow. Following the net fight between The Oatmeal webcomic creator Matt Inman, and aggregator of non-funny stuff, Funnyjunk, we've been pointing out that Funnyjunk's lawyer, Charles Carreon needs to stop digging himself deeper into the hole he's found himself in. Instead, he seems to have decided on the opposite strategy, and he's digging deeper and deeper every minute.

If you don't recall, he was trying to shut down the fundraising effort that Inman set up in response to Funnyjunk's threat. And then he accused Inman of "instigating security attacks" against his website. The latest is that he's now redirected his own website to a sales page for his book, but also has done an interview with Dave Thier at Forbes, in which he's even more aggressive in fighting back against Inman and those who are mocking him. It's really quite incredible. Thier describes Carreon as being "excited about this bizarre new world he had stumbled into" and now focused on somehow pinning the blame on Matt Inman:

In his 20 years as a lawyer, he says, he’s written hundreds of letters like the one he sent Inman, but the response to this one was unique.

“So someone takes one of my letters and takes it apart. That doesn’t mean you can just declare netwar, that doesn’t mean you can encourage people to hack my website, to brute force my WordPress installation so I have to change my password. You can’t encourage people to violate my trademark and violate my twitter name and associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery,” he says. “And if that’s where the world is going I will fight with every ounce of force in this 5’11 180 pound frame against it. I’ve got the energy, and I’ve got the time.”

Except, uh, nowhere has Inman "declared netwar" nor has he encouraged anyone to hack Carreon's website. If it's true that scriptkiddies have gone after Carreon's website, that's unfortunate, but it's a ridiculous (and obnoxious) stretch to pin the blame for that on Inman. Of course, associating someone with incompetence, with stupidity and with douchebaggery is broadly a statement of opinion. There's a First Amendment thing we have that generally says that's okay. People can call each other stupid douchebags, and we like that in America.

For color commentary, we turn to Ken at Popehat, who decides to educate Carreon on the First Amendment:

The implications of Mr. Carreon's position are profoundly chilling. Under the rule he seems to suggest, if you write about bad behavior by someone else, even if you don't urge action, you run the risk that you will be held liable when one of your readers is inspired to hack or threaten or harass. Perversely, this means that the more criminal or unconscionable or horrific the conduct you are describing, the greater legal risk you take by writing about it. That's not the law, thank God. The very suggestion is un-American and contemptible.

Moreover, note that Mr. Carreon is suggesting that it is actionable not only to inspire people to undertake (alleged) illegal action, but actionable to inspire people to "associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery." In other words, if your criticism of someone's conduct leads others to form an opinion of him, and express that opinion, that's actionable. That's true to the extent that someone states false facts about a person — for instance, by falsely accusing them of child abuse. But The Oatmeal offered satirically expressed opinions about Mr. Carreon's conduct in a letter which The Oatmeal presented to his readers to review. To the extent that The Oatmeal opined that Mr. Carreon is incompetent, stupid, and a douchebag, those are classic opinions absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Under First Amendment law governing defamation, they are particularly protected because The Oatmeal presented the facts based on which he drew his opinions — namely, the letter itself. Under the theory that Mr. Carreon seems to be advancing, if I wrote you a letter suggesting that your wife beds down with diseased ocelots and calling for your children to be flogged, and you publish the letter and say that it suggests that I am a disturbed person of low character, then I would be legally responsible if people formed the same opinion based on the evidence you provided. Indeed, under Mr. Carreon's apparent theory, if he criticizes The Oatmeal's response to him as vulgar or unprofessional or uncivilized, he's legally responsible for people agreeing with him. This is not law, this is madness. And bear in mind that Mr. Carreon markets himself as a First Amendment champion.

But Carreon has decided that "there must be a law!" against this, and dammit, he's going to find it:

He may have a very difficult time proving that Inman “instigated attacks,” as he said on his website, but he’s certain he can find some legal recourse for what’s going on right now – “California code is just so long, but there’s something in there about this,” he says.

Back to Ken at Popehat, who notes in response, why yes, there is a law:

Oh, Mr. Carreon, indeed there is. There's California's magnificent anti-SLAPP statute, under which you'll be paying the attorney fees of anyone you sue. There's California's judgment debtor exam law, under which you can be interrogated about your income and assets in preparation for garnishing your income and, if necessary, seeking liquidation of your assets to satisfy a judgment for attorney fees against you. There's California's sanctions statute, under which you can be sanctioned for bringing suit to harass or without adequate legal or factual basis.

Read them carefully. And think. Think hard. Step back from the precipice. This can get better, by you letting it go. Or it can get worse. Much, much worse.

Carreon tells Thier that he welcomes "the opportunity to confront legally the misuse of a new technology." First of all, it's not that new, and he might want to do some digging into other clueless lawyers who have sought to shut down online criticism of themselves. Carreon is still digging and he's going to lose very, very badly in court with the arguments he's making right now. Given his statements to various reporters, he's already made it clear that he's seeking to suppress speech and that he's willing to use any law he can find to do so. That's a particularly short-sighted thing to do, given California's relatively strong anti-SLAPP law, which one hopes Carreon familiarizes himself with.

But, really, there's the bigger issue: what the hell is he thinking at this point? And isn't there anyone with a basic grasp of the internet who knows him who can sit him down and tell him to stop digging?

Filed Under: anti-slapp, attacks, charles carreon, free speech, matthew inman, slapp, the oatmeal
Companies: funnyjunk

Pro-SOPA Folks Push Fact-Challenged Op-Eds

from the at-the-sopa... dept

It seems that, in the wake of the big protests that helped shelve (for now, at least) SOPA and PIPA, the pro-SOPA folks have started pushing people to write op-eds in various publications about how important SOPA/PIPA are -- while simultaneously dismissing the concerns of those who opposed the bills. I keep seeing more of them, but wanted to dig into three recent examples, all of which show how the pro-SOPA folks are trying to distort the debate through either outright falsehoods, or carefully misleading statements.

We'll start with Duff McKagan, the founding bassist for Guns N' Roses. He wrote a piece for Seatle Weekly telling people to stop whining about SOPA and PIPA. The logic here doesn't make much sense to me. His argument is that people should have done big web protests about online infringement, not about attempts to censor the internet. Now, obviously, he thinks that's in his own best interests -- but, as we've seen pretty clearly over the years (and contrary to his claims), these reports of infringement destroying the entertainment industry is just not supported by the data.

The fury from the Internet class is that the broad language in the pieces of legislation will be bad for start-ups, might prevent the next YouTube, or give the government the ability to take down a whole site because of one link to copyrighted works. In short, they're opposed to the legislation because they think it will be bad for the Internet business.

Bad for business. Anti-piracy legislation could be bad for the Internet business. It almost takes my breath away. Internet piracy has claimed half of the recorded music business, and made the prospect of making a living as a musician harder for artists of all rank and file. Why didn't Google, or Facebook, or Wikipedia ever stand in solidarity with musicians, actors, and writers - most of whom have never known fame and fortune - as their works were stolen with no recourse on their sites?

No, actually, the fury was that it would be bad for internet users -- including, by the way, plenty of musicians. And, again, the evidence that piracy has "claimed" half the market is simply not there. The recorded music business was a temporary bubble, but that money continued to flow (and grow) into the wider music industry. And, the prospect of making a living as a musician has not decreased -- it's increased. What McKagan doesn't recognize is that, in the past, nearly everyone who went into the music business was not as lucky as he was. Nearly all of them ended up getting pushed out while making next to nothing. Today, however, thanks to the very "internet businesses" he doesn't care about -- companies like TuneCore and TopSpin and Kickstarter and Bandcamp -- plenty of new artists can make a living that they wouldn't have been able to make before. They don't have to rely on Universal Music or EMI or Warner Music or Sony Music. They can do it themselves.

Then we move on to Gavin Polone, writing for NY Mag, about why he supports SOPA and his theory for why the entertainment industry "blew it" in trying to get this bill passed.

I have funded two films with my own money and am considering doing a third. Most of the people working on those films were not rich people, but rather middle-class craftsmen who make high-five-figure to low-six-figure sums per year. My decision on whether to fund another movie, thereby employing more people, will be based on whether or not I get my money back on the last two, and my prospects for making money on another. If a film of mine is put on a file-sharing site like Pirate Bay, Movieberry, and Newsbin2, and is then downloaded to potential customers, I lose revenue. Nobody is going to pay to see a movie in a theater, rent a DVD, or legitimately download or stream a movie once they already have it from a free pirate site.

If you think that way, perhaps it's true. But if you actually don't have a closed mind and look around at what other people are doing and realize that people are more than willing to pay if you treat them right, the entire premise that Polone has is wrong. Of course, if you naturally assume that your fans are evil, then don't be surprised if they don't want to support you.

Other industries have laws to protect them against third parties whose businesses facilitate a crime. Why not entertainment?

Ah, the "lawless" argument. This is ridiculous. Copyright law has been adjusted 16 times in the last 35 years, much of it to deal with new digital technologies. To claim that there are no laws to protect you is simply ridiculous. But, more to the point, as we've said over and over again, the best protection is to connect with your fans rather than pretend they're all out to get you. Polone fails there. That's his fault, not everyone else's.

This is in no way censorship. A widely read op-ed piece by Rebecca MacKinnon in the New York Times likened SOPA and PIPA to China’s Internet firewall, which is used by that government to stifle criticism of its policies. This is a ridiculous exaggeration. There is no intent to suppress speech in these bills, only theft, and the risks of anyone being unable to find an outlet for their free speech because of SOPA or PIPA is minimal.

It is not a ridiculous exaggeration at all. And the intent of the bill is meaningless compared to how it will be used -- and we know that it will be used for censorship because we've already seen existing copyright law used for censorship. This isn't a theory, this is reality.

Blocking offenders will not break the Internet nor security. I’ve read numerous articles in which techies claim that DNS (Domain Name System) blocking — which forces ISPs to not allow access to sites determined to be trafficking in stolen entertainment — will undermine security and/or “break” the Internet. Like many of you, I am not versed enough on technical issues to explain how DNS blocking programs work or what may be the right method to ensure Internet security.

Uh, yeah. I don't get this crazy tech stuff, but I'm sure what all those "experts" say is untrue. Sheesh. He goes on to say that because he can't play online poker any more, and because some ISPs block child porn or malware, clearly blocking wouldn't break the internet. Perhaps he should try actually understanding the details next time. The big issue is DNSSEC, not just DNS, and even Comcast (one of the major supporters of the bill) has admitted that DNS redirects are incompatible with DNSSEC. Furthermore, the fact that he can't play internet poker any more isn't because of DNS blocking. It's because of a (questionable) US law that cut off money transfers to those companies -- an approach that many of the folks against SOPA/PIPA supported in the OPEN Act which allowed for exactly the system that made it harder (but not impossible) for poker sites to function in the US. Look, it's okay to not understand complicated tech, but to use an example that has nothing to do with the tech, and actually supports what folks on the other side of the debate are saying? That just makes you look silly...

Moving on, we have the new poster boy for the pro-SOPA movement, David Newhoff, who compared the arguments against SOPA/PIPA to the "death panels" used in the healthcare debate -- claiming that the arguments of internet users worldwide were no more truthful than the claims of death panels from the healthcare proposal. That's funny. It's also wrong. Lots of people opposed to SOPA/PIPA laid out detailed, factual arguments for why these bills were dangerous. And we have plenty of very real evidence of how these laws will be abused (and how existing law is already abused).

But what's really funny is that if anyone is guilty of "death paneling," it has been the pro-SOPA/PIPA forces -- insisting that their industry is being decimated, when it's actually growing. They're the ones calling things "piracy" and "theft" when we're talking about infringement. They're the ones talking about starving artists, when more artists are making money from their content creations than ever before. They're the ones talking about less art will be created when we're living in a time of massive abundance of artistic creations. Yes, there are exaggerations in this debate, but I'd put up the anti-SOPA/PIPA side against the pro-side anytime, and it's entirely clear that the anti-side has the facts on their side much more than the SOPA/PIPA supporters do.

Filed Under: attacks, facts, pipa, sopa

Did DOJ Provoke Anonymous On Purpose?

from the conspiracy-theory-time dept

I've been on record for a while now that I think the strategy of doing DDoS attacks on websites that people don't like is a bad idea, that will lead to backlash. Though, I will admit that I underestimated their effectiveness in some cases. Indeed, even as the Anonymous DDoS attacks on various targets in response to the Megaupload takedown is getting a ton of attention, I'm still convinced it's a bad idea long-term. I should be clear that I understand the response. Also, the response is not a surprise. If we've learned anything over the last few months, it's that large segments of the internet are exceptionally frustrated with attempts to censor speech online -- and when you get that many people frustrated, and then poke them in the eye with a big stick, it's not a surprise that they might react.

Over at News.com, Molly Wood is suggesting that DOJ did this all on purpose -- including the timing of the release -- in order to provoke just such a response. This serves multiple purposes for the government. It gives them the chance to make the (obviously bogus and laughable) argument that the wider protests were done by this same group. But, it also gives DOJ and law enforcement the chance to go even further, and use this as an excuse to crack down online and put people in jail. It also gives a (again, bogus) reason to pass far-reaching cybersecurity legislation. The end result could be a lot worse.

Supporters of these actions may claim that it's the only way to be heard. But I'm not convinced that's true. What happened Wednesday showed that there are ways to be heard without resorting to tactics that can be described as vandalism. I don't think it's fair to call it vandalism -- as I've said that I believe that such actions are a lot more like a digital sit-in. But I'm just not sure it's productive. I'm sure it feels good to vent... but the end result may not be productive at all.

Filed Under: anonymous, attacks, backlash, crackdown, ddos, doj, pipa, sopa, takedowns
Companies: megaupload

US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill

from the not-the-case,-steve-o dept

Steve Tepp is the US Chamber of Commerce's (the world's largest lobbying group) point man on PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE/SOPA. His latest move is to try attacking anyone who points out the problems of E-PARASITE/SOPA. First up? Demand Progress, who dared to call it a "blacklist bill." According to Tepp, it's not a blacklist bill, because the lobbyists who wrote the bill (potentially including Tepp himself) were smart enough not to write "list" in the text of the bill.

Of course the bill doesn't actually say that there's a list. Just as the Chinese Great Firewall doesn't actually involve the government "listing" sites, but merely threatens ISPs with liability if they let bad sites through, E-PARASITE massively broadens the definitions of what's "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property" such that it now includes, more or less, the entire internet, and threatens sites with the equivalent of internet death: blocking from search engines, blocking from DNS (and more!), cutting off any funding sources. No, there's no "blacklist," there's just the threat of cutting off just about any internet site. On top of that, there's an awkwardly worded attempt to force every site to proactively monitor any infringement. Is that why the US Chamber of Commerce doesn't allow comments on its site? Or is it because it knows that no one actually believes the crap it shovels?

But Tepp's intellectual dishonesty is worse than just pretending that without the word "list" there's no actual blacklist. No, the really cheap move is to imply that only the "anti-IP crowd" is against this bill. This is the latest strategy of those who wish to massively regulate the internet so that it looks more like TV -- a broadcast medium, rather than a communications medium. They refer to anyone who points out the massive negative consequences of their legislative nastiness as being "anti-IP." You've seen it in Techdirt's comments for the past few weeks, with certain anonymous commenters throwing hissy fits about how I'm actually "pro-piracy," when I'm anything but. If you don't think this is part of the coordinated marketing campaign by the largest lobbying organization in the world, you're not paying attention.

So, Steve, let's be clear: being against this bill is not about being "anti-IP." It's about being pro-innovation, pro-internet. It's about recognizing the massive benefits of an open internet. It's about recognizing the massive benefits to the American (and world) economy that were created from an open internet that didn't involve misplaced third party liability.

The concerns of those about this bill have nothing to do with intellectual property and whether it's good or bad. It's about the collateral damage that such a vast change to the legal and technical framework that the internet has been based on for years will cause.

To brush those concerns away as being "the anti-IP crowd," is to show ignorance of what's at stake.

What we don't understand, Steve, is why you would seek to shut down the open internet, killing off more jobs than ever existed in the entertainment industry. We thought the US Chamber of Commerce was supposed to support small businesses. Instead, you're seeking to make any internet business nearly impossible, unless they've already hired a dozen lawyers. I guess if your goal is for full employment for trial lawyers, you're making headway. But, seriously, if you can't debate this subject honestly, don't be surprised when the next generation of businesses dumps the US CoC. Pro tip: pissing off every company of the next generation that might support your bloated organization is no way to build for the future. And don't think jobs "in the industry" will be waiting for you. Without the next generation of great startups that you're trying to kill off, the big content companies who pay your salary these days, won't have the new platforms they need to succeed.

Filed Under: anti-ip, attacks, blacklist, e-parasite, sopa, steve tepp
Companies: demand progress, us chamber of commerce

Leaked HBGary Documents Show Plan To Spread Wikileaks Propaganda For BofA... And 'Attack' Glenn Greenwald

from the this-is-like-out-of-a-bad-movie dept

Sometimes reality can be more entertaining than fiction. You may have followed the recent story involving a security firm called HBGary Federal, in which the company's CEO, Aaron Barr, told the Financial Times this weekend that he had secretly "infiltrated" the non-group Anonymous and identified its leadership... and that he was planning to hand over the info to law enforcement. Of course, it was pretty questionable how accurate the information is, considering Anonymous isn't actually a "group" with a hierarchy at all. It wouldn't be surprising to find out that there were some folks who were heavily active, but that's different than claiming there's "leadership." Either way, Anonymous did what Anonymous does when someone does something it doesn't like: they hacked. Beyond taking over Barr's Twitter account and revealing all sorts of private info and taking over various web servers connected to HBGary Federal, it also released 44,000 of the company's emails.

Once again, as I've said before, I really don't think this is a good idea. The potential backlash can be severe and these kinds of attacks can create the opposite long-term incentives that the folks involved think they're creating. It also gets people a lot more focused on the method rather than the message and that seems unfortunate.

Still, the leaked emails are turning up some gems, with a key one being that Bank of America (widely discussed as Wikileaks' next target) had apparently been talking to HBGary Federal about how to disrupt Wikileaks. That link, from The Tech Herald, includes tons of details. The full proposal (embedded below) feels like something straight out of a (really, really bad) Hollywood script.

It appears that the law firm BofA was using as a part of its Wikileaks crisis response task force, Hunton and Williams, had reached out to firms asking for research and a plan against Wikileaks. HBGary Federal, along with Palantir Technologies and Berico Technologies put together their pitch. According to the emails discussing this, the firms tried to come up with a plan as to how they could somehow disrupt Wikileaks , see if there was a way to sue Wikileaks and get an injunction against releasing the data.

There are two key slides in the presentation. The first is a totally bizarre plan of attack on Salon journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been an outspoken supporter of Wikileaks. However, these three companies seem to think that they can pressure him to give up supporting Wikileaks in this case and that will somehow solve a big part of the issue. According to the Tech Herald, the word "disrupted" in the final presentation was actually written as "attacked" in earlier drafts of the presentation. This suggests some pretty confused thinking on the part of these firms. The idea that Wikileaks would "fold" without people like Glenn supporting them seems pretty silly, as does the idea that Glenn would suddenly give up the cause. Still, it's pretty freaking ominous for the firm to seriously be suggesting that it can somehow put pressure on Greenwald that would lead him to "choose professional preservation over cause." It makes you wonder just what level of underhanded tricks they were thinking about pulling.

Later on in the presentation is the plan to further disrupt Wikileaks, which is basically to create a propaganda campaign around the organization -- as if the press wasn't doing that already. They also have the idea to upload bogus info to Wikileaks, hope the bogus info gets released and then discredit Wikileaks by showing that it publishes bogus info. Who knows? Perhaps this very presentation is faked and is all a part of HBGary's nefarious plan (since the document is available via Wikileaks...). Either way, the whole thing reeks of the types of organizations that think they're fighting a single, centralized foe, rather than a distributed movement that is interested in transparency. All of these attacks -- even if successful -- wouldn't do much harm to the overall efforts to increase transparency. Even if they succeeded in quieting Greenwald, others would continue to report on this. Even if they discredited Wikileaks itself (and many have tried), others have been springing up nearly every day to take its place.

It's not known whether or not BofA actually agreed to this proposal (or ever actually knew about it), though apparently HBGary Federal employees were hopeful they'd get the deal to provide these services. If so, going on to blab in the press about infiltrating Anonymous probably wasn't the best way of keeping out of the spotlight on these issues...

Filed Under: anonymous, attacks, glenn greenwald, leaks, wikileaks
Companies: bank of america, berico, hbgary federal, hunton and williams, palantir, wikileaks