Imperva: Anonymous Used LOIC to Attack DoJ, MPAA

[Tunaservices]

Anon is against the use of LOIC. Anonymous has been working hard all night. Brazil has been launching attacks all night with great success. http://www.micheltemer.com.br/ was hacked along with http://www.sefanet.pr.gov.br/

We are Anonymous
We are legion
We will not forgive
We will not forget
Expect us

 

[soundthinking]

[citation][nom]errorcode99[/nom]the governments learns to not mess with the freedom of the people. it's VERY obvious.[/citation]

The whole problem is: they don't learn! You just end up angering them; it's like poking a large Black Bear. Do it enough and the bear doesn't learn to stop doing something, instead it'll charge you on all fours then rip your face off!

 

[blazorthon]

I would really like for Anonymous to find a more effective way than being anonymously annoying to these groups. Really, taking down the FBI site? Does anyone, even the FBI, seriously care about that site? Same goes for the rest of these. Sure it's better than doing nothing (even that's debatable) but not by much.

I want to see them actually disrupt these guys, really bring down the gavel on them.[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]This, however, isn't sound justification for any criminal charges; if they did indeed openly state how they were acting, it would simply prove evidence that they were not acting in good faith, and would lose much of the protection from the "Safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA. This would still not be viable reason to immediately take down the site; as I've seen in the law, this would require that the FBI and Justice Department achieve a ruling in their favor from the courts; this is how civil law works.In other words, it was the (apparently fabricated) claims of criminal activity (money laundering) that allowed them to get a warrant to attempt to shutter the site themselves; that is how criminal law works. I very much don't like this: given that the Justice Department has effectively no chance of winning the criminal cases, (as I explained in a lengthy section on another article) this poses a huge chance of backfiring, as then the Justice Department is then liable for all the harm brought by the improper actions. This could likely mean that any damages MegaUpload would be liable for through their DMCA violations... Would be made up for by what the Justice Department would owe them.That'd be just perfect: paying the MPAA and RIAA for all their claims, right out of taxpayer dollars! However indirect this may be, I just don't like the sound of that.That is certainly a possibility. Of course, a push by some that more oppressive legislation is required itself could have a backlash... Or the backlash could simply come directly from this. It's an open question at this point, but certainly the point you raise has a lot of merit to consider... To the point that a number of more-active members of anonymous, I saw, took note of this.That is correct; I personally liken Anonymous to less a "group" as people understand it, and more a "mob." It seems to consist of whoever wishes to decide to take part that particular day. A "mob" also fits its organization, or lack thereof.[/citation]

If your legislative knowledge is correct (I assume so) then is there any way to solve this mess these bastards got going in less than a year? Megaupload's staff may have played around copyrights but that's no good reason for this crap. The FBI really shouldn't have gotten involved unless there was sensitive information on Megaupload which I admit the possibility of but also realize the unlikelihood of Megaupload's staff posting such info on their own site even if they had access to it.

 

[DRosencraft]

In a nutshell, they were sloppy and openly expressed their disregard to copyright holders.

This, however, isn't sound justification for any criminal charges; if they did indeed openly state how they were acting, it would simply prove evidence that they were not acting in good faith, and would lose much of the protection from the "Safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA. This would still not be viable reason to immediately take down the site; as I've seen in the law, this would require that the FBI and Justice Department achieve a ruling in their favor from the courts; this is how civil law works.

In other words, it was the (apparently fabricated) claims of criminal activity (money laundering) that allowed them to get a warrant to attempt to shutter the site themselves; that is how criminal law works. I very much don't like this: given that the Justice Department has effectively no chance of winning the criminal cases, (as I explained in a lengthy section on another article) this poses a huge chance of backfiring, as then the Justice Department is then liable for all the harm brought by the improper actions. This could likely mean that any damages MegaUpload would be liable for through their DMCA violations... Would be made up for by what the Justice Department would owe them.

Actually, thanks to certain laws passed long ago intended for use against the actual mob, Megaupload can be classified under criminal law as a facilitator of illegal activity. If they were as brazen and open about the fact that they had illegal content as they are reported to have been, then that is like you broadcasting to the police in your neighborhood that you have a boatload of stolen goods in your garage, but you're just holding it for someone else. You may not have stolen it yourself, but you're knowingly aiding in a criminal activity. It's not simply a "good faith" issue. If the FBI can therefore label Megaupload as an organization that facilitates criminal activity, they can then get a warrant to hold the assets of that organization and shut it down. In NYC in the days when the mafia was muhc bigger, the NYPD and FBI used these laws to shut down businesses that, like Megaupload, were sloppy about the plausible deniablity that they didn't know they were dealing with the mob, or being used by the mob to deal with illegal property.

If They want to do something for the people, how about targetting the misused and misappropriated funds of the senators and comp that support this bill.... and I dunno, depositing it in the accounts of the people that don't support the idea.

That would be another stupid move by an organization/meme/whatever that has been making lots of stupid moves. Not only would they obviously be in trouble, but anyone who receives any of that money and spends it could end up being on the hook for at least paying it back, if not legally prosecuted for using it. Don't think it would happen? You can just as easily be prosecuted for spending money mistakenly deposited in your bank account even if it's the banks mistake and they don't know how the money ended up there.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]soundthinking[/nom]The whole problem is: they don't learn! You just end up angering them; it's like poking a large Black Bear. Do it enough and the bear doesn't learn to stop doing something, instead it'll charge you on all fours then rip your face off![/citation]

Hilariously enough I'd say that the bear is more intelligent than the average legislator seems to be. Besides that, I think brown bears and polar bears get much larger than black bears.

 

[millerm84]

I think some of you are assuming too much about anonymous. Assumption number one is that anonymous doesn't do more then DDoS attacks to websites because they can't. Anonymous considers themselves to be activists or "hacktivists" rather then hackers, and like all good activists they place high value on symbolic measures. Actions like chaining yourself to a tree, refusing to give your seat to someone of a different color, or taking down a website have no real value, but they are symbols that others can rally around. On this same notion it would be irresponsible for anonymous to cause harm destroying MPAA/RIAA or FBI servers. Such actions could cost hardworking artist their livelihoods or in the case of the FBI allow dangerous criminals or terrorist to go free.

Assumption two is that anonymous is only a bunch of script kiddies and therefore irrelevant. There has never been a successful army that had more generals then soldiers and no one really discredits a soldier for only being able to use a weapon and not create his own. Anonymous may be mostly people using pre-written scrips to take down website, but that doesn't mean that the writers of these scripts wasn't/isn't a member of anonymous nor does it mean there isn't a number of sophisticated hackers within the group who play by the rules because they believe in the cause.

Anonymous hasn't been dangerous either by design or by their own limitations, but at the end of the day their effectiveness will be measured in the number of people who become aware of their cause. Whiter or not you respect their cause or methods they still have you talking and no matter how much you dislike them or the amount of contempt you hold for their methods/actions you joining this conversation is what they wanted. They may just be script kiddies but they won you over.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]millerm84[/nom]I think some of you are assuming too much about anonymous. Assumption number one is that anonymous doesn't do more then DDoS attacks to websites because they can't. Anonymous considers themselves to be activists or "hacktivists" rather then hackers, and like all good activists they place high value on symbolic measures. Actions like chaining yourself to a tree, refusing to give your seat to someone of a different color, or taking down a website have no real value, but they are symbols that others can rally around. On this same notion it would be irresponsible for anonymous to cause harm destroying MPAA/RIAA or FBI servers. Such actions could cost hardworking artist their livelihoods or in the case of the FBI allow dangerous criminals or terrorist to go free. Assumption two is that anonymous is only a bunch of script kiddies and therefore irrelevant. There has never been a successful army that had more generals then soldiers and no one really discredits a soldier for only being able to use a weapon and not create his own. Anonymous may be mostly people using pre-written scrips to take down website, but that doesn't mean that the writers of these scripts wasn't/isn't a member of anonymous nor does it mean there isn't a number of sophisticated hackers within the group who play by the rules because they believe in the cause. Anonymous hasn't been dangerous either by design or by their own limitations, but at the end of the day their effectiveness will be measured in the number of people who become aware of their cause. Whiter or not you respect their cause or methods they still have you talking and no matter how much you dislike them or the amount of contempt you hold for their methods/actions you joining this conversation is what they wanted. They may just be script kiddies but they won you over.[/citation]

Well put but you misspelled "whether" near the end of your post. +1 anyway.

I have to say that I also don't think that Anonymous is purely script kiddies. They have done some hacks way beyond scripts and denying that is simple ignorance on the side of some of these comments.

 

[DRosencraft]

I think some of you are assuming too much about anonymous. Assumption number one is that anonymous doesn't do more then DDoS attacks to websites because they can't. Anonymous considers themselves to be activists or "hacktivists" rather then hackers, and like all good activists they place high value on symbolic measures. Actions like chaining yourself to a tree, refusing to give your seat to someone of a different color, or taking down a website have no real value, but they are symbols that others can rally around. On this same notion it would be irresponsible for anonymous to cause harm destroying MPAA/RIAA or FBI servers. Such actions could cost hardworking artist their livelihoods or in the case of the FBI allow dangerous criminals or terrorist to go free.

Assumption two is that anonymous is only a bunch of script kiddies and therefore irrelevant. There has never been a successful army that had more generals then soldiers and no one really discredits a soldier for only being able to use a weapon and not create his own. Anonymous may be mostly people using pre-written scrips to take down website, but that doesn't mean that the writers of these scripts wasn't/isn't a member of anonymous nor does it mean there isn't a number of sophisticated hackers within the group who play by the rules because they believe in the cause.

Anonymous hasn't been dangerous either by design or by their own limitations, but at the end of the day their effectiveness will be measured in the number of people who become aware of their cause. Whiter or not you respect their cause or methods they still have you talking and no matter how much you dislike them or the amount of contempt you hold for their methods/actions you joining this conversation is what they wanted. They may just be script kiddies but they won you over.

I respectfully must disagree. You are correct that they don't only do DDoS attacks. But I highly doubt that it's simply because they think it's flashier to mar a public website and not gain much rather than a serious hacking. Hacking is tough. I'm sure they would prefer to do a 'real' hacking and dish some dirt, but they simply can't do it as readily as they would like. That's not to say they can't hack websites or are only 'script kiddies' but they haven't proven they have the chops to perpetrate serious attacks on government websites.

Once again, to your second point, while they may have some serious hackers, they haven't shown that capability yet at a high level. When you're talking about an amorphous group like Annonymous, they certainly need more generals than soldiers. Their entire structure is based on the capability and skills of individual actors. It isn't even so much that they have to many soldiers and not enough generals, but that their generals haven't done much to differentiate themselves from the soldiers. If the general only seems as capable as the frontlline grunt, what does that say about the strength of the army? Numbers can at some point tip the scales, but Annonymous doesn't seem to have those numbers yet.

Finally, I don't buy the arguement that their effectiveness can be measured by voice alone. I've heard many third-party candidates in politics make the same claim. Simply having people talk about how much they hate you may gain you infamy, but it does nothing to progress your goals. Your ability to gain traction for ideals is what is important, not just getting your name out there. Getting name recognition may help your ideas gain support, but not neccessarily. They haven't won man people over. They're still around, so they have the oppurtunity still to achieve their goals. But they appear more and more like petulant children as time goes by. Even a child can be dangerous if they get their hands on a even a pair of scissors, that doesn't mean they're actually poised to accomplish anything more than hurting themselves and others.

 

[acerace]

You want to win and argument, you must give alot of money.

 

[madooo12]

Along with the statement, Anonymous also released the personal information of MPAA CEO Chris Dodd, his wife, and his two children. They also provided the information for the MPAA and its ten offices spread out across the globe.

i really felt sympathy with those gys untill i read

Address 1:
8 7th Street Northeast, Washington, DC 20002-6022
Phone Number: (202) 548-6040
Property Value: $997,000 [http://bit.ly/A7wfpb]

Address 2:
53 Main Street, East Haddam, CT 06423-1305
Property Value: $453,400 [http://bit.ly/ynBXN0]

in the pastebin thing
a child having 1M $ and another 500K $

i never even dreamt of having 100K $

 

[madooo12]

[citation][nom]madooo12[/nom]i really felt sympathy with those gys untill i readin the pastebin thinga child having 1M $ and another 500K $i never even dreamt of having 100K $[/citation]
oh no stupid edit button
forgot to remove those stupid phone numbers, links and addresses

can a passing admin please remove them

 

[peter_b123]

LOLZ. Anonymous sux.

Can I be the first one to break their widdle fingers with a baseball bat?

They're not for the common man, they're for their own self-serving fame and fortune. They can suck it.

 

[K2N hater]

[citation][nom]Tunaservices[/nom]Anon is against the use of LOIC. Anonymous has been working hard all night. Brazil has been launching attacks all night with great success. http://www.micheltemer.com.br/ was hacked along with http://www.sefanet.pr.gov.br/We are AnonymousWe are legionWe will not forgiveWe will not forgetExpect us[/citation]
Safenet is an anti-pedophile law enforcement group. It has nothing to do with taking civil rights away, especially in Brazil.

 

[Guest]

Oooooooo! Anon took down the POSTERS of some organizations! Ph34r their l337 hacker skills! This article makes it sound like they went and hacked into the FBI mainframe or something. They did the equivalent of walking up a bulletin board and ripping down a flyer and now all the bigwigs have their panties in a knot that 'hackers' are out for them.

Bish please! It's a bunch of teenaged zitballs who went and downloaded PREMADE SOFTWARE.

Not to mention, what are they so butthurt about? They took down a site, Anon took down theirs. The congressman in charge of bringing this forward deserves it most of all. His site's background image is pirated from an artist he never credited.

 

[lysinger]

right wing perspective:
SOPA supporters are the good guys, anon are the bad guys

left wing perspective:
(Can't think of anything witty at the moment)

geek perspective:
resistance is futile, capacitance is pointless