×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Two Europeans Indicted In US For 2003 DDOS Attacks

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the how-about-some-shrimp-echouafni dept.

The Internet 93

narramissic writes "In a continuation of the first successful U.S. investigation ever into DDOS attacks, Axel Gembe, 25, of Germany and Lee Graham Walker, 24, of England were indicted Thursday by a grand jury in Los Angeles, California, on one count of conspiracy and one count of intentionally damaging a computer system. The two men were allegedly hired by Jay R. Echouafni, owner of Orbit Communication, a Massachusetts-based company that sold home satellite systems, to carry out DDOS attacks against two of Orbit's competitors."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

93 comments

Criminal Minds (5, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288093)

It takes a genius to hire a couple of people to do your dirty work. It takes even greater genius to accept money to damage computer systems, from a complete stranger who would never rat you out.

Re:Criminal Minds (1, Flamebait)

sjwest (948274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289007)

Well least the american who hired them is no criminal. America loves to blame us 'foreigners'

Re:Criminal Minds (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25289277)

Might want to learn to read English, bud. The man who hired them was primarily being investigated, that lead to the 'foreigners'. Those darn Americans!

Re:Criminal Minds (3, Insightful)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 5 years ago | (#25291967)

Why has this been modded flamebait? it seems like a valid point to me and also to most legal systems (including the US). The person who commissioned a crime to be committed is surely just as guilty as the people who committed it?

All three of them should be tried together and face the same penalty.

Re:Criminal Minds (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25293227)

What surprises me is that A. Gembe went to the US. After all it is constitutionally impossible to get deported to third nations for a crime. So why didn't he stay at home? I would not suspect to get a fair trial in the States because the criminal enforcement system is broken.

Re:Criminal Minds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25290495)

And it takes a real genius to offer that very reliable and trustworthy first genius a very sizable reduction in punishment if he names, and testifies against, the alleged second genius. What could possibly go wrong ?

Haha I suck! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25288095)

First Post!

Re:Haha I suck! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25288873)

you certainly do suck. Why do you even try?

Tax Dollars (-1)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288139)

Why was the US government even involved? Shouldn't the competitors have broght their evidence directly to court against Orbit?

Re:Tax Dollars (4, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288231)

It's a criminal investigation. If Company A vandalizes Company B, do you expect Company B to "bring their own evidence to court"?

Re:Tax Dollars (2, Interesting)

An anonymous Frank (559486) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288239)

Perhaps it wasn't that easy to figure out the real $ource of the attack. --I am very curious as to what may happen to Orbit though.

Re:Tax Dollars (1)

Hairy Heron (1296923) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288489)

Why is this marked insightful? What exactly insightful in asking why federal investigators became involved in a case that falls under a federal criminal statute?

Re:Tax Dollars (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25288605)

Judging by the fact that the Grand Jury is in California, the crime was committed against a party in another state. Thus federal jurisdiction.

Re:Tax Dollars (0, Offtopic)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289103)

Because it's a felony. With any felony - a crime against the state - technically, the government is always involved.

Re:Tax Dollars (1)

Raiden30 (1339617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289777)

The post offers no insights, it barely even makes a point for that matter, instead the post just makes a statement with a rhetorical question. If anything someone should mod it "no shit Sherlock"

Re:Tax Dollars (0, Redundant)

Shadow-isoHunt (1014539) | more than 5 years ago | (#25290867)

Uh, it's in court. Thus, the government(who runs the court) is involved. It doesn't matter if it's even civil court, it's still friggin government.

Re:Tax Dollars (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25291277)

True. Except when it is a civil matter The Man acts as a mediator between parties and/or settles the dispute with a trial. In my state the Docket would read "[Party 1] vs [Party 2]".

In the case of a felony, The Man would be the second party. The docket in my state would read "The State of Ohio vs. [Party 2]"

Only in very special matters is there ever "The United States vs. [Party 2]" in which case Party 2 is fucked for even having their name on the paper.

extradition (0)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288213)

were they extradited? if so, why?

Re:extradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25288707)

Yes. Because they committed a crime. Seriously, you should try using that brain every once and a while.

Re:extradition (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288871)

AFAIK Germany doesn't extradite its citizens due to constitutional constrains, put there after the Nazi rule.

Re:extradition (5, Informative)

neuromanc3r (1119631) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289057)

You're wrong. Germany does extradite citizens, as long as a couple of conditions are met.

Specifically, the suspect must have committed a crime that is punishable in both countries, must not be tortured or executed after the extradition, needs a fair trial and so on...

Re:extradition (2, Informative)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289179)

that's why I went back and looked up the German Grundgesetz.
Artikel 16
(2) Kein Deutscher darf an das Ausland ausgeliefert werden. Durch Gesetz kann eine abweichende Regelung für Auslieferungen an einen Mitgliedstaat der EuropÃischen Union oder an einen internationalen Gerichtshof getroffen werden, soweit rechtsstaatliche GrundsÃtze gewahrt sind.

Re:extradition (3, Informative)

mrvan (973822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289925)

"No German can be extradited to another country. The law can create a different arrangement for extraditions to the EU or an international court, as long as fair trial [rule of law] is guaranteed."

[not a german native speaker, apologies for any mistakes]

Re:extradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25290165)

You got that right (IAANS - I am a native speaker).

Technically, the U.S. fails these requirements on all counts. No EU member, does not recognize the international courts, no fair trial at least for "enemy combatants".
However, as we are always happy to help, I am quite certain that something can or will be arranged. Or the CIA has to take up its kidnap-German-citizens routine again...

Sad state of affairs!

Re:extradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25297381)

The constituion ("Grundgesetz") is no longer enforced in Germany.
The government relases laws violating it at a faster pace than the constitutional court can sack them.

Re:extradition (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25290187)

Oddly enough, Google very quickly comes up with an article about Extradition Treaty between Germany and the USA originally signed in 1978, with a Supplement to same in 1986, and another couple of Supplements in 2006.

Re:extradition (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 5 years ago | (#25290239)

This is for "other citizens", e. g. a US citizen arrested in Germany. Germany does not extradite to countries with the death penalty, so every extradition to the US needs a "we won't seek the death penalty" waiver from the US.

Re:extradition (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25293547)

Sorry, so it is possible at all that a German citizens gets extradicted to the US? I am shocked!

Re:extradition (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 5 years ago | (#25293611)

Catch him in another country, Germans love to go on vacations.
But, joke aside, my guess is the Germans will probably prosecute him anyway for what he did, what would proscribe prosecution here under double jeopardy.

Re:extradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25296319)

If I may ask some stupid law-noob questions:

What about a civil suit from the affected competitors? Can they seek damages after the hackers have been criminally prosecuted? And how does a suit like that work internationally - after all, extradition seems pretty much beside the point when the objective is compensation rather than jail time.

For example, can his assets in the US (credit card, Paypal account, etc.) be seized? We Germans aren't just compulsive tourists, but also heavy online shoppers. ;)

Re:extradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25296275)

And the US are neither in the EU nor an international court. So the German is probably safe. He may get fined in absence (no idea how that works) but he won't see jail in the US.

The guy from England should worry a bit more. Not sure anymore, but I vaguely remember a similar extradition case ending badly. That might have been an Australian though.

Re:extradition (2, Informative)

spacefiddle (620205) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288951)

Lee Graham Walker, a British citizen, and the German malware programmer Axel Gembe have appeared in a federal court in San Francisco...

I'm guessing yes.

This article [heise.de] also notes that Gembe may have been the HL2 thief, and that he's been on the hook for this DDoS attack since 2006: this was just their (first?) court appearance for it.

I have no particular premonition about how this will all turn out. On the one hand, German courts were taking it easy on him as long as he straightened his life out... on the other, the FBI with its "first successful investigation" into a DDoS may wish to make example of. We'll see.

Re:extradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25297307)

Gembe is not in the US and has not been extradited.
Here is his own post on heise online (german):
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/S-Re-Nicht-das-man-den-Typen-nicht-verknacken-sollte-aber/forum-145078/msg-15662720/read/

Remember kids... (1, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288257)

... always stop around 1995 DOS attacks or you'll be indicted !

Better safe than sorry !

Revoke (5, Interesting)

Improv (2467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288263)

This seems like a good time to consider revoking Orbit Communications' corporate charter.

Re:Revoke (1)

terraformer (617565) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288547)

And ban the "owner" from ever serving on a corporate board. If he wants to run a business, he can run the local qwiki-mart. In fact, even that is likely an s-corp. Maybe he can run a lemonade stand.

Re:Revoke (4, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288885)

Maybe he can run a lemonade stand.

Well, right now, he's running... like the fugitive scum that he is.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/cyber/echouafni_s.htm [fbi.gov]

Re:Revoke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25289811)

that's flounder from animal house, no?

Re:Revoke (1)

Zibri (1063838) | more than 5 years ago | (#25290059)

"SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ARMED AND DANGEROUS", uh... He might hire europeans to DDoS you! Fear!

Re:Revoke (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25288699)

I don't think there will be any repercussions for Orbit, considering they are a Saudi-based company (http://www.zawya.com/cm/profile.cfm/cid1001503/). They couldn't go after the company, so they went after the people. I wish that's how it worked in US corporations.

Re:Revoke (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25289011)

It's Massachusetts. The penalty for running over and killing someone while driving drunk is to become a state senator. The penalty for severe security lapses that allow terrorists to kill 3000 people is - well, nothing.

Besides, given that they think that blinking cartoon characters made out of LEDs are bombs, I doubt anyone in power in that state is smart enough to understand what a DDOS attack is. Even MIT's management decided LEDs were bombs when the state police almost shot one of their students for wearing a shirt with LEDs on it.

Technicality (1)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288697)

intentionally damaging a computer system.

Call me dense, but how did it damage the system? It unreasonably increased load on it, meaning it couldn't handle all its requests, but afterwards the system was still, one assumes, functioning.

Re:Technicality (4, Interesting)

torchdragon (816357) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289175)

The server was subjected to intentional unusual activities that caused a loss of business services. Is it actual physical damage? I'm not sure. I don't know what the legal definition the law is using.

Either way, they caused business loss using non-legal practices. "Physical" damage or not, they should have know this would've been the recourse.

One of my old co-workers decided to delete all the accounts on our Lotus server in China before he left (no, he wasn't trying to do us any favors either) the company. Sure, the "repair" was to reload the database from backup but that constituted damage under national and international law. He got nailed to the wall for it.

Re:Technicality (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289781)

When computers are overloaded first smoke comes out, then there is a huge explosion. I've seen this in dozens of movies and Star Trek episodes. Your PC is probably so cheap that it didn't come with a self-destruct mechanism. I recommend Windows ME.

Software can damage hardware (3, Interesting)

Layth (1090489) | more than 5 years ago | (#25290097)

It really depends on the type of hardware involved.

One example - Limited write memory can be intensely overwritten until it's worn out and rendered useless, resulting in financial loss.
I don't know if it has anything to do with this case, or if any damage actually occurred.

Just speaking in terms of technicalities.

Re:Technicality (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25291203)

I'm certainly no lawyer, but I'd imagine that numerous things fall under the term "intentionally damaging a computer system." And that rendering the machine unusable, even for a limited time, counts as damage. If not, then there certainly would have to be a sister law that covered that sort of thing, as well as the integrity of software and data. That being the case, why wouldn't they combine it all under one law?

Messing with data is often times more "damaging" to the victim than the hardware would be. It would cost me money to replace my power supply or RAM or whatever, but assuming that I can afford it, I can get hardware basically identical to what I had before. Data can be much harder to replace. Hopefully you've got some backups. But in the case of a DOS, the victim is potentially losing data before they even get a chance to back it up. That's really worse in a lot of ways.

Extradition from the UK to US (3, Insightful)

MattLees (1127603) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288893)

Based on the UK Govs attitude to bending over whenever the US Gov requests someone to be extradited I wouldn't want to be in Lee Graham Walker's shoes right now.

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289025)

As long as we don't want to execute them they seem to not really care. It is a classic attitude of the British to not want to keep (unconvicted) criminals in their country. Plus you can hardly blame them for honoring a treaty and all. Do you think they only do this for the US? I don't have the data, but I suspect they extradite people to France as well.

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (0)

MattLees (1127603) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289111)

The difference with extraditing to France is that it works both ways. With the US it unfortunately isn't.

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (3, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25290055)

The difference with extraditing to France is that it works both ways. With the US it unfortunately isn't.

I wish this particular idea would quietly give up the ghost. It's just not true.

There is a valid, reciprocal, extradition treaty between the USA and the UK. The UK has, in addition, ratified a revision to that Treaty that the US Senate hasn't bothered to ratify yet. Which means the revision is valid in the UK (assuming the brits choose to treat it as valid - they don't have to, since it hasn't been ratified here), but the original treaty is still valid in the USA (and in the UK, assuming the brits choose to treat the revision as not yet valid, since it hasn't been ratified by the Senate).

Which means that people can be (and are) extradited to the UK from the USA when the appropriate paperwork is submitted to whatever department of the US government handles such things. Just like happens when the USA wants to extradite someone from the UK.

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25297455)

Care to cite an example of people being extradited from the US?

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25298011)

Can we have our IRA terrorists (and their Noraid funders) back, please?

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25299629)

Can we have our IRA terrorists (and their Noraid funders) back, please?

Sure. Fill out the paperwork, and send it on over to the Justice Department. After, of course, charging them with a crime over there. Then wait for the hearings, appeals, etc. to go through.

Just like we have to do when we try to extradite someone from over there.

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289211)

Plus you can hardly blame them for honoring a treaty and all.

Watch me.
We should never have signed up to such a wide-ranging treaty (a fact which has become abundantly clear recently) - I expect our government to frustrate the process of complying with the treaty as much as possible whilst simultaneously working to get out of it.

I don't have the data, but I suspect they extradite people to France as well.

The French justice system is a damn-sight more civilised than the US one.

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25289411)

The French justice system is a damn-sight more civilised than the US one.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (2, Insightful)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289817)

So what's your experience with the US and French judicial systems? I'm interested in hearing your first-hand account of your experiences dealing with both.

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (2, Interesting)

shermo (1284310) | more than 5 years ago | (#25293641)

"The last executions took place in 1977"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_France [wikipedia.org]

I think that's a good place to start.

Of course that depends if you consider killing peeople 'civilized'.

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25293297)

The French justice system is a damn-sight more civilised than the US one.

The French justice system is known for such civilized aspects as guillotining women for the "crime" of abortion within living memory.

France follows the Napoleonic code, which among other things has a de facto (although not de jure) presumption of guilt of an accused. It is strange that the geeks who criticize the US for locking captured terrorists up in Gitmo without trial love the French who do the same thing only to everybody!

French courts follow the inquisitorial system, in which the court is actively involved in determining the facts of the case, as opposed to the US and British adversarial system in which the court acts as an impartial referee. What this means is that the judge basically serves as another prosecutor in French courts.

Love those civilized French.

Oh, and by the way, it's "civilized" with a "z", not an "s". The -ize root is Greek and as such "z" is the proper letter. Whatever other arguments can be made about American vs. British spelling, this is a case where the Americans are right. If you want to argue which country spells correctly, the best answer is Canada, which rejected the 19th century American alterations but adopted the correct -ize root.

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 5 years ago | (#25295099)

The French justice system is known for such civilized aspects as guillotining women for the "crime" of abortion within living memory.

And the US has executed people for equally dubious reasons in the past. The point at issue though is which is more civilized RIGHT NOW, and the one which doesn't execute people at all comes out on top there.

France follows the Napoleonic code, which among other things has a de facto (although not de jure) presumption of guilt of an accused.

*shrug* any trial actually run on the basis of presumption of guilt will be tossed by the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR does stamp on lower courts, and is aguably better at it than SCOTUS.

French courts follow the inquisitorial system, in which the court is actively involved in determining the facts of the case, as opposed to the US and British adversarial system in which the court acts as an impartial referee.

Which is a MUCH better system than where the court is just a thoughtless tool which doesn't actually care about facts, only the relative strength of the cases. If one side presents something untrue and the other doesn't refute it then people get unjustly hurt - I WANT courts which are actually interested in the truth. The purely adverserial system in common-law courts is a heavy contributor to why they're so screwed up today. For instance; the Angela Cannings case in the UK, the primary prosecution witness made two major errors in his statistical argument, but unless the defence are on-the-ball enough to point it out (which it turns out that they weren't) the flawed evidence will stand (which it did) because it isn't (and wasn't) the court's prerogative to question it.

What this means is that the judge basically serves as another prosecutor in French courts.

(S)He has an equal responsibility to look for evidence demonstrating the innocence of the accused - the adverserial system has prosecutors who have the sole aim of constructing a case to show that the accused is guilty, even if they aren't.
In any case, once you get to a court where there is a prosecutor, the inquisitorial judge is no longer there.

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (1)

legirons (809082) | more than 5 years ago | (#25291059)

It is a classic attitude of the British to not want to keep (unconvicted) criminals

Uhh, no such thing in British law?!?

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25304833)

Are you a Briton? Do you know what the word "classic" means? Have you experienced or researched anything about British culture? Do you possess any education in history? Did you read any newspapers during the 1970s, 80s or 90s about the IRA? Did you even see any movies depicting British military and political leaders?

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25305841)

Are you a Briton? Do you know what the word "classic" means? Have you experienced or researched anything about British culture? Do you possess any education in history? Did you read any newspapers during the 1970s, 80s or 90s about the IRA? Did you even see any movies depicting British military and political leaders?

Is there some point to your incessant questions?

Re:Extradition from the UK to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25308459)

Answering a question with a question, you lose.

Yuo 7ail it!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25288915)

Which 6athers backwArds. To the

The interesting part (4, Insightful)

bendodge (998616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25288933)

While I think it's a good thing that international cyber-vandalism (or whatever you want to call it) is being investigated in regular courts (instead of some super-world thingy), I think the most interesting part is the charges against Lee Graham Walker. According to the article, his crime was using IRC to chat with Gembe about the botnet's code. Now, I'm not a legal expert or even legal savvy, but that sounds like a charge that would easily apply to a lot of geeks who IM with geeks short on ethics. I don't think it's being misused in this case, but it does sound like a pretty wide net.

Re:The interesting part (2, Insightful)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289497)

It's quite clearly misuse. Any IRC recording by the investigation entitiy would result in inadmissable evidence, at least under the US constitution. Since the "criminals" (as everyone likes calling them) are not US citizens, they aren't covered by the constitution.

More importantly, a botnet could be used for any number of things. Depending on the actual conversation, Gembe may not have revealed his use, or lied saying it was to test a network he administered.

Re:The interesting part (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25289813)

Just because the defendants are not US citizens does not mean that Constitutional protections don't apply. The Constitution does not talk about the rights of citizens, but the rights of people. If US law is going to be applied to someone, then the entirety of US law, including the Constitution and its Supremacy Clause, apply.

So you are wrong. They are covered by the Constitution.

Re:The interesting part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25292185)

Since the "criminals" (as everyone likes calling them) are not US citizens, they aren't covered by the constitution.

Screams "unfair trial" to me.

Well, doesn't matter much to Gembe, as Germany won't extradite its citizens (except inside the EU and to international courts).

Should of hired the captain midnight guy or the ma (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25289895)

Should of hired the captain midnight guy or the max headroom to take over there satellite signal.

Good. But this is tip of the iceberg. (1)

Neanderthal Ninny (1153369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25290113)

This DoS or DDoS is going to kill all of us, electronically. If this DoS or DDoS doesn't stop we will be at the mercy of these female donkey anal orifices. We cannot let these people go or their "handlers" (the people who hire and control them) go also. We need to stop this or this will stop the entire internet working since everyone will DoS or DDoS each other and we, the non-participants, will suffer from these stupid and total waste of network resource games. We need to find and get most of these people who start these male bovine feces so we all can use the internet.

Bleys Bolton (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25291161)

On other reports (even the BBC), the British man is described as hailing from Bleys Bolton. So why does this place not turn up one hit on Google? All 41 hits I saw when I just tried a quoted search related to these indictment reports. We are sure these people exist, aren't we? Has anyone in the UK heard of Bleys Bolton? I sure haven't. Neither has Google Maps.

DDoS Mafia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25291759)

In case anyone wants to know this is an extension of the "DDoS Mafia" bust that involved FooNet. In case anyone is wanting to know one of the people busted in 04 for this got payment in the form of a shell account.

Illegal activities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25293173)

How could it happen, that a british and a german citizen were turned over to that rogue state?

Sheer Genius! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25294657)

Hmmmmm.... let's see. There are three satellite service companies in town, and 2 of them were just attacked.

Well, I guess I am stumped. I give up. Who might have done such a thing?

The *really* interesting thing... (1)

KlausBreuer (105581) | more than 5 years ago | (#25297273)

...in this whole affair is that the UK gouverment handed a UK citizen over to the USA for something he was accused of in the USA, not the UK.

The very concept of handing over your own citizens to a different country is absolutely disgusting.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...