MPAA Uses Anon Attacks To Make Nonsensical Comments About Free Speech

from the a-protest-isn't-gov't-shut-down dept

I'm really beginning to wonder about the MPAA's PR people and their near total inability to think through how their statements will be perceived. It's put out a response to the DDoS attacks from Anonymous by trying to "take back" the moral high ground on the free speech issue. Yes, they're claiming that the DDoS is a free speech violation and then wrap themselves in the First Amendment:

Unfortunately, some groups believe that speech or ideas that they disagree with should be silenced. This could not be more wrong. No matter the point of view, everyone has a right to be heard.

The motion picture and television industry has always been a strong supporter of free speech. We strongly condemn any attempts to silence any groups or individuals.

The Internet is home to creativity, innovation and free speech. We want to keep it that way. Protecting copyrights and protecting free speech go hand in hand."

Ok. So then you condemn SOPA and PIPA, right? Since those are attempts to silence people. But here's the thing: "free speech" issues are about government censorship. Such as passing a bad law that allows the government to take down websites. Having some people protest you may be annoying, but it's not a free speech issue (other than, perhaps, in arguing the protesters' rights to free speech. Trying to regain the high ground on this issue is pretty transparently ridiculous by the MPAA -- and simply calls much more attention to who's actually trying to stifle free speech by passing bad laws that allow for censorship.

Filed Under: anonymous, ddos, first amendment, free speech, protests, seizures
Companies: mpaa

The Internet Strikes Back: Anonymous Takes Down DOJ.gov, RIAA, MPAA Sites To Protest Megaupload Seizure

from the doj-does-not-understand-what-has-been-unleashed dept

I'll have a more detailed look at the Megaupload indictment tomorrow (there are some really ridiculous claims in there, but also some evidence of bad actions on the part of Mega, which isn't too surprising). However, even if you're 100% positive that Megaupload was a bad player in the space, you have to question both the timing and the process of completely taking down the site/company the day after practically the entire internet rose up to protest the threat of similar takedowns under SOPA/PIPA. For them not to think the reaction would be fast and furious shows (yet again) just how incredibly, ridiculously, out of touch with the internet the DC establishment is.

Within minutes of the site being shut down, and DOJ releasing its statement, Anonymous sprang into action and started taking down a ton of sites -- including websites for the DOJ, the US Copyright Office, Universal Music, the RIAA, the MPAA and a bunch of other sites. They're apparently still targeting more.

Think of this as the flipside of yesterday's protests. Yesterday the internet folks went dark to protest things. Today... following the government's decision to show off its existing censorship powers -- mocking yesterday's protests -- it appears that the industry/government supporters of online censorship are going dark involuntarily... in a different form of protest.

When will the government learn: don't muck with the internet?

Filed Under: anonymous, censorship, copyright office, ddos, doj, internet, pipa, protect ip, retaliation, seizure, sopa, takedowns
Companies: mpaa, riaa, universal music

Lawyer For Accused: DDoS Is A Legal Form Of Protest

from the this-could-get-interesting dept

Last year, we discussed whether or not things like Operation Payback by Anonymous (DDoSing sites of organizations they didn't like) was really the equivalent of a modern-day sit-in protest, rather than a criminal hacking, as law enforcement (and victims) wanted to allege. It appears that this may be a question that courts are going to need to answer. Nick points us to the news that the lawyer for a homeless guy accused of setting up a DDoS on the City of Santa Cruz (he was pissed about a law) is claiming that DDoS attacks are legal and protected speech in the form of a protest:

“There’s no such thing as a DDoS ‘attack’,” Leiderman said. “A DDoS is a protest, it’s a digital sit in. It is no different than physically occupying a space. It’s not a crime, it’s speech.”

Leiderman said the crimes shouldn’t be prosecuted at all. “Nothing was malicious, there was no malware, no Trojans. This was merely a digital sit in. It is no different from occupying the Woolworth’s lunch counter in the civil rights era.”

In this case, the case has nothing to do with Anonymous, Lulzsec or any of those high profile groups, but they might want to pay attention to the case. It seems that some of those already arrested in various sweeps against Anonymous and Lulzsec have indicated that they're considering the same defense strategy. In that last one, involving Mercedes Haefer, who was charged with being a part of Anonymous, her lawyer is pointing out that President Obama has asked supporters to overload the switchboards of Congress -- and that's a form of a denial of service attack:

"I think this is a political persecution, end of story," Cohen said. "This administration wants to send a message to those who would register their opposition: 'you come after us, we're going to come after you.' That's what has happened in the Eric Holder Department of Justice."

"When Obama orders supporters to inundate the switchboards of Congress, that's good politics, when a bunch of kids decide to send a political message with roots going back to the civil rights movement and the revolution, it's something else," Cohen told TPM, stipulating that he was not indicating that his client was even involved. "Barack Obama urged people to shutdown the switchboard, he's not indicted."

Not surprisingly, I'm sympathetic to this argument, though I do wonder how well it'll play in court. In both of these cases, I think a decent case can be made that the actions are a form of speech, in that they were both designed to protest certain actions. The question is whether or not the courts will recognize them as legitimate and protected protests. And that may very well come down to the judges in the cases.

Filed Under: anonymous, ddos, free speech, protests, sit in

Now Random Webhosts Are Demanding Wikileaks Mirrors Be Taken Down Over Possibility Of DDoS?

from the weak-sauce dept

With all the attempts by corporations to distance themselves from Wikileaks -- often claiming dubious legal issues or terms of use violations that don't seem to really exist -- the EFF is pointing out that one of the (many, many) Wikileaks mirror sites was told by his hosting company he had to remove it or he'd lose his account. The reasoning was quite bizarre. The host claimed that its upstream provider was worried about potential DDoS attacks:

Recently we heard from a user who mirrored the Cablegate documents on his website. His hosting provider SiteGround suspended his account, claiming that he "severely" violated the SiteGround Terms of Use and Acceptable Use Policy. SiteGround explained that it had gotten a complaint from an upstream provider, SoftLayer, and had taken action "in order to prevent any further issues caused by the illegal activity."

SiteGround told the user that he would need to update his antivirus measures and get rid of the folder containing the Wikileaks cables to re-enable his account. When the user asked why it was necessary to remove the Wikileaks folder, SiteGround sent him to SoftLayer. The user asked SoftLayer about the problem, but the company refused to discuss it with him because he isn't a SoftLayer customer. Finally, SiteGround told the user that SoftLayer wanted the mirror taken down because it was worried about the potential for distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks. When the user pointed out that no attack had actually happened, and that this rationale could let the company use hypothetical future events to take down any site, SiteGround said that it was suspending the account because a future DDOS attack might violate its terms of use.

Taking down a site because it might possibly be subject to a DDoS attack in the future? How does that make sense? We were confused enough when EveryDNS claimed that getting hit by a DDoS violated its terms of service, but its even more confusing to think that the remote possibility that at some date in the future you might get hit by a DDoS is a terms of service violation.

Separately, I was quite surprised to see SoftLayer's name as being involved here, because I'm aware of other situations in which SoftLayer has been protective of customer rights and not prone to act rashly. So I'm curious if this was a miscommunication or if something else happened.

Filed Under: ddos, hosting, mirrors, wikileaks
Companies: siteground, softlayer

FBI Apparently Investigating Anonymous' 'Operation Payback' Denial Of Service Attacks

from the denial-of-denial dept

We pointed out early on that the distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks on various pro-copyright organization websites was a dumb idea. Beyond just giving those organizations the ability to portray themselves as victims, you knew that it would just lead to them crying to law enforcement -- and so it's no surprise that the FBI is now investigating. I have no doubt that, at some point, they'll find some sort of sacrificial lamb or three which will be prosecuted, and potentially sent to jail. Some believe that once a few of those folks are sent to jail, it will scare off folks involved in these attacks, but I do wonder if going after these users is actually making the same mistake: that is, it turns them into victims, and only rallies people up. The whole thing just becomes silly, with each side attacking each other, making the other side look like victims. It's hard to get out of the cycle and focus on opportunities for moving forward. And that's really unfortunate.

Filed Under: 4chan, anonymous, ddos, denial of service, operation payback
Companies: fbi

30 Months In Prison For Denial Of Service Hit On Politicians' Websites

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

For all of those participating in the denial of service attacks being put together by "Anonymous," you might want to consider that a guy who took down various politicians' websites with DDoS attacks just got 30 months in prison -- along with over $50,000 in fines and 3 additional years of "supervised release." This certainly seems like punishment way out of line with the actual actions, but in this day and age of law enforcement and the legal system not really understanding technology, it's not all that surprising.

Filed Under: ddos, prison

Gene Simmons Now Wants To Throw 'Anonymous' In Jail

from the good-luck,-gene dept

A couple of weeks ago, Gene Simmons made one of his ridiculously misguided attacks on file sharers (he does it every few years). Despite the fact that KISS is a perfect example of a band that makes a ton of money from scarce goods that are made more valuable the more people are aware of their music, Simmons has this misguided notion that "suing everyone" is the right strategy. Of course, as we pointed out at the time, he's obviously bluffing, because he's had the opportunity to do so for years and he has not done so.

Either way, his antics caught the attention of the folks behind "Operation Payback," from the group Anonymous (an effort that I still think is equally misguided), and they took down Simmons' website with a DDoS attack (after an apparent dispute internally over whether or not Simmons should be a target).

Either way, it appears that the attack only sharpened the rhetoric from Simmons, in his standard speak-first-understand-later manner. He posted on his site that he was working with the FBI to "sue their pants off" for "hacking" his site:

Some of you may have heard a few popcorn farts re: our sites being threatened by hackers.

Our legal team and the FBI have been on the case and we have found a few, shall we say "adventurous" young people, who feel they are above the law.

And, as stated in my MIPCOM speech, we will sue their pants off.

First, they will be punished.

Second, they might find their little butts in jail, right next to someone who's been there for years and is looking for a new girl friend.

We will soon be printing their names and pictures.

We will find you.

You cannot hide.

Stay tuned

Well, good luck with that. It tends to be a lot harder to identify folks behind a DDoS attack than you might think. Also, I'm curious why the FBI even cares, but we've seen the FBI kowtow to celebrities in the past, so it's possible. Either way, all this has done, so far, is to get Anonymous back to taking down Simmons' website. My guess is that, just like his previous comments, this looks like Simmons as all-talk-and-no-action. But, the more he tries to become the latest version of Lars Ulrich, the more he's going to regret it.

Filed Under: 4chan, anonymous, ddos, gene simmons

Denial Of Service Attacks On RIAA & MPAA Are A Really Dumb Idea

from the come-on dept

There's an entertainment industry lawyer who once used his blog to suggest that I had an "army of hackers" at my disposal that I would order to send a denial of service attack against anyone I disagreed with. I thought that was pretty funny in how ridiculous a claim it was. Beyond the fact that I can barely get my dog to follow my instructions (and I feed her!), let alone anyone who reads this site, I think that denial of service attacks are a pretty dumb idea. It does nothing but piss off people and doesn't make any real point at all. So it's really disappointing to hear that the /b/ folks at 4chan decided to use this weekend to DDoS the MPAA and then the RIAA. The thing with /b/ is that even at their most crude and immature, they're usually creative in their attacks. There's nothing at all creative about taking down the MPAA and the RIAA -- and all it does is serve to reinforce their misguided prejudices that it's just a bunch unruly kids who dislike them. On top of that, it gives them more ammo to position themselves as being persecuted by a small minority. It's a dumb move that looks bad and does a lot more harm than good from a group that should know better.

Filed Under: /b/, 4chan, ddos
Companies: mpaa, riaa

AT&T Blocks 4chan Over DDoS... But May Not Like What Happens Next...

from the that-would-not-be-a-good-thing... dept

A few folks have submitted the news that, apparently, AT&T is blocking access to a certain subdomain of 4chan. I just checked on my own AT&T DSL account and it's true that I can't get there (I can get there if I don't go via AT&T). That doesn't mean that AT&T definitely is blocking it, but there are reports that folks at AT&T have admitted that it's true. If you don't know what 4chan is, the 4chan Wikipedia page is probably the best way to understand it. Even if the site is controversial for some, it does seem quite extreme for AT&T to do an outright block, without any official warning or immediate explanation. Outright blocking of websites, without recourse and without a clear explanation of why, is extremely questionable and the sort of "net neutrality" violation that the FCC would likely come down hard against. If it's true that there's a block, perhaps AT&T is assuming that no one serious (such as the FCC) would come to the defense of 4chan, but that might be a mistake (in part because AT&T probably won't like what happens when 4chan decides to come to its own defense). Hopefully this will be explained away as a mistake. So far, the best explanation I've seen is (via 4chan) the claim that the subdomain was involved in some sort of DDoS attack, but you would think that, if that were the case, AT&T would have just made that clear from the beginning. Not coming out with a clear and concise explanation just looks bad, and seems to be stirring up 4chan folks to make a statement -- something AT&T almost certainly does not want. AT&T may be able to tap your phones, but getting on the wrong side of 4chan seems like a bad, bad idea.

Update: As expected, AT&T has confirmed (as we believed) that this was over a DDoS attack:

Beginning Friday, an AT&T customer was impacted by a denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org. To prevent this attack from disrupting service for the impacted AT&T customer, and to prevent the attack from spreading to impact our other customers, AT&T temporarily blocked access to the IP addresses in question for our customers. This action was in no way related to the content at img.4chan.org; our focus was on protecting our customers from malicious traffic.

Overnight Sunday, after we determined the denial-of-service threat no longer existed, AT&T removed the block on the IP addresses in question. We will continue to monitor for denial-of-service activity and any malicious traffic to protect our customers.

That said, I still think AT&T failed here, in that they did not make this clear from the outset. If they had stated upfront what the situation was, in conjunction with the temporary block, they would have been much better off. But by silently blocking, they kicked off a firestorm that had to have been expected by anyone aware of 4chan.

Filed Under: 4chan, blocking, ddos, isps, net neutrality
Companies: at&t