Beta
×

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!

MasterCard Hit By WikiLeaks Payback Attacks

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the this-is-getting-messy dept.

Security 715

An anonymous reader writes "MasterCard's website has been hit by a distributed denial of service attack. Netcraft describes how the attack uses a voluntary botnet of LOIC (low orbit ion cannon) users to swamp sites with traffic. PostFinance, the PayPal blog and Swedish prosecutors have been targeted previously."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Stupid action (1, Insightful)

mseeger (40923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486644)

Such stupid actions will only serve to discredit Wikileaks further. The best and only response should be: take your own money elsewhere.

CU, Martin

Re:Stupid action (1, Funny)

Rhalin (791665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486728)

Such stupid actions will only serve to discredit Wikileaks further. The best and only response should be: take your own money elsewhere.

CU, Martin

Not bad, as long as Visa doesn't do the same thing. (Don't try to pretend that Discover and Amex are -real- credit cards).

Re:Stupid action (5, Informative)

hansraj (458504) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486882)

Visa *is* doing the same thing. [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Stupid action (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487092)

Visa *is* doing the same thing. [bbc.co.uk]

Mastercard did it first, I'm sure Visa will be next... after Paypal.

Re:Stupid action (1)

Rhalin (791665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487146)

Visa *is* doing the same thing. [bbc.co.uk]

Excuse me while I crawl out of the hole I've been living in.

Re:Stupid action (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487178)

I wonder what is the monetary impact of those attacks. Frankly, that's more interesting than the number of zombies.

Think: does it important how many walking dead attacked your supermarket, or how many of you were mauled to gruesome death?

Re:Stupid action (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487352)

I don't think they count as zombies when the botnet is voluntary. This is more like a coordinated attack by ninjas and pirates.

Re:Stupid action (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487308)

Or just don't use CCs outside of online purchases. The CCs have some pretty not-nice "taxes" and tactics to enforce them on the people who accept payment from them already. They really aren't nice companies.

Re:Stupid action (1, Troll)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486736)

It doesn't discredit wikileaks though fox news types will probably claim wikileaks are the ones doing it.

It is damned retarded though.
a good ad campaign (mastercard doesn't care about freedom of speech etc) and taking your buisness elsewhere would do much more.

Re:Stupid action (5, Informative)

linhares (1241614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486926)

Freedom of speech, priceless. For everything else, there's Mastercard.

Re:Stupid action (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487002)

It doesn't discredit wikileaks though fox news types will probably claim wikileaks are the ones doing it.

Yeah, because the stuff being said over at CNN or MSNBC is so much more advanced. Get real and stop being a little goose stepper.

a good ad campaign (mastercard doesn't care about freedom of speech etc) and taking your buisness elsewhere would do much more.

Has that ever made a difference?

Re:Stupid action (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487272)

It doesn't discredit wikileaks though fox news types will probably claim wikileaks are the ones doing it.

It is damned retarded though. a good ad campaign (mastercard doesn't care about freedom of speech etc) and taking your buisness elsewhere would do much more.

Of course, a "good ad campaign" would never see air or print - not to mention that it's generally a bad plan to attack from a position of weakness anyway - Anon has superior forces in the online realm. Why wouldn't they use it?

Re:Stupid action (2, Insightful)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487360)

Of course it does, by association. Claiming otherwise is naive; pretending it's a viewpoint that can be blamed on Fox news and their listeners is simply childish.

If the average person on the street learns of this, they see a group of people who have few qualms against engaging in cyber-terrorism against a major financial company that is quite rightly distancing itself from Wikileaks because of some very illegal activities. You may clamor against this viewpoint all you wish and engage in some lovely logical debates, but it doesn't change the fact that this is how most people will see it. Slashdot readers and posters are not representative of the public at large.

Re:Stupid action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34486742)

True, but Anon is on no one's side. They're just a mindless collective.

Re:Stupid action (0)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487014)

and mindless idiots to boot

with their coordination they could do something helpful, but they'd rather act like the fucking adolescents they are

Re:Stupid action (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487122)

So what do you want adolescents to do then? Vote?

Re:Stupid action (5, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487298)

"Act like fucking adolescents?"

This is the modern equivalent of a lunch counter sit-in. [wikipedia.org] No user has had their computer hijacked, they are all participating of their free will. Are they "disrupting business"? Perhaps, but no worse than the lunch counter sit-ins did.

Re:Stupid action (4, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486860)

Just an FYI: you can't take your money elsewhere unless you go completely cash and are picky with ATMs. MC owns a few of the biggest consumer money transfer networks, so even if you pick Visa you'll still often be using MC services.

Re:Stupid action (2, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486956)

Furthermore, Visa is already doing the same thing.

Re:Stupid action (1)

mseeger (40923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486992)

To quote Diablo 3: There is always a choice ;-)

Seriously: If the topic is not important enough for someone to accept some discomfort, it should not be important enough to comit crimes about...

CU, Martin

And this is why we need a Cyber command. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487152)

Thank Anonymous.

Re:Stupid action (3, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487312)

Governments and institutions are the ones which thru with their words and actions are getting discredited. Wikileaks is not saying to do, nor doing the DDoS to those sites, so why it should be discredited?

Idiots! (5, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486646)

Don't target the website, target the servers that do the money-traffic!!!!

Re:Idiots! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34486718)

That's what I was thinking. I don't know what the point of attacking the public website is. It doesn't really affect anything. Meanwhile many of the transaction servers are on the Internet and could be targeted. Not that I condone such activity but it would make more sense as a target.

Just offers even more proof that "hackers" like the ones doing this attack are childish morons.

Re:Idiots! (0)

Spyro16 (1860054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486878)

Just offers even more proof that "hackers" like the ones doing this attack are childish morons.

That's proof to you? I don't think you could write a paper on your theory to back it up. Childish maybe, but morons, you yes, them no.

Re:Idiots! (2)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486816)

Target the millions of innocents who need to make sure that their lives run smoothly?

Re:Idiots! (0)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486854)

Oh lol, the CIA has mod points. I am a troll now :')

Re:Idiots! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487118)

Forgive me. Stupid Slashdot insta-modding. I was looking at a different comment and modded your instead. Maybe someone else can fix it up.

Re:Idiots! (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486972)

Yes, because they have access to the financial network to attack it. ...

Re:Idiots! (2)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487114)

Don't target the website, target the servers that do the money-traffic!!!!

That'll stop the public being behind them, just like the Miners' strike in the UK. Damaging the corporate side is the right idea.

Re:Idiots! (1)

think_nix (1467471) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487260)

parent +informative

Re:Idiots! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487338)

Yeah if they wanted to be really disruptive they would target the payment processor gateway like those ran by (according to the terrorist organization called google) datacapsystems, mercurypay, paypros, globalpaymentsinc etc... they could lookup the name of the payment gateway in the dns records of the above organizations and plan the attack on dec 20 to dec 24

Mastercard: Thanks Slashdot (5, Insightful)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486664)

And now because of Slashdot linking to MasterCard, their denial of service attack increased even more.

Re:Mastercard: Thanks Slashdot (1)

Spyro16 (1860054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486738)

Haha yeah, that's the first thing I tried as well.

Re:Mastercard: Thanks Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34486952)

Well, I am proud to say that I clicked on the link :)

Re:Mastercard: Thanks Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487208)

And nothing of value was lost? Seriously. Do we really need people spending beyond their means?

That being said, I'm sure since no one was killed, bludgeoned or maimed, and only a website was taken offline, that the media whore will be all over it damning the continued internet anarchy machine. It's amusing that THIS has become the real concern, rather than, as I type this and you read it, genocide actively happening in Africa, wide-scale corporate and political corruption, and the continued usurpation of basic human rights.

It appears the game of 'shoot the messenger' is still going. I thought it was ended yesterday when Assange was arrested. Funny, huh!

Re:Mastercard: Thanks Slashdot (2)

MrJones (4691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487302)

Is the site down? Let me command+click(or middle click) 10 times that link just to verify ... ;)

Clever. (1)

Rhalin (791665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486666)

Adding a slashdotting to a DDOS, good job Anon.

thankz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487024)

anytiem

"voluntary botnet" (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486670)

"voluntary botnet"
why does such a thing even exist??
Did voluntary Borg exist?

Re:"voluntary botnet" (5, Informative)

Applekid (993327) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486764)

Just like people volunteer for Folding@Home. If one believes in a cause strongly enough they could be convinced to lend CPU cycles (well, network packets) to help DDoS a site.

Re:"voluntary botnet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34486780)

Not quite "bots" but definitely simulates the effect of a botnet quite well if you get enough pissed off anonymous.

Re:"voluntary botnet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487196)

Why not? Wouldn't you want to have tubes coming in and out of you all over, nanites all over your body and a super-eye with lasers? And be part of the great hivemind collective that is The Borg?

I'd totally volunteer, sign me up.

Down, so slashdot it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34486678)

Let's beat that dead horse with a slashdotting! Good thinking.

Poor Mastercard (4, Insightful)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486680)

I wonder how they feel being denied due process...

Re:Poor Mastercard (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34486924)

Due process applies to the court of law. It doesn't bind private parties from denying people from using their services.

why mastercard? (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486698)

Can someone enlighten me as to why anon is targeting Mastercard? Paypal I get, but what has Mastercard done?

Re:why mastercard? (1)

PARENA (413947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486766)

Same thing: they have "distanced themselves" from WikiLeaks, apparently.

Re:why mastercard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34486776)

They refused to let their customers use their Mastercard to donate money to Wikileaks because Wikileaks was engaged in "illegal activity."

Re:why mastercard? (4, Informative)

savanik (1090193) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486810)

According to the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] , it's all due Mastercard no longer permitting donations via their services to Wikileaks.

However, I doubt the DDOS is going to change their mind.

Re:why mastercard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487108)

However, I doubt the DDOS is going to change their mind.

Who cares? It shows that MasterCard is a weak corporation.

Re:why mastercard? (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487288)

According to the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] , it's all due Mastercard no longer permitting donations via their services to Wikileaks.

However, I doubt the DDOS is going to change their mind.

We're not getting any orders via Mastercard from our payment processor any more. I'm pretty sure some loss of profit and bad publicity might at least prove a point - or at least make an impact to those who are ignoring the Wikileaks story.

Re:why mastercard? (3, Informative)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486828)

By denying us the rights to send our money to this great organization they effectively said: we are the bitches of the US and we condemn free speech, the first amendment and hate the truth. That's why.

Re:why mastercard? (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486856)

+1

Re:why mastercard? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487032)

For some time I hated americans, living in a post communist country, with all it's problems, while americans seemed to cause even more. And then I saw a slogan, used by some americans, I love my country, but I fear the government. That's why, when you make such statements "bitches of the US", be sure to add government. It will make everything better.

Re:why mastercard? (5, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487044)

You actually make a very interesting point.

For the purposes of elections and raising funds for a political party, monetary donation is considered an exercise of free speech. That is the premise that allowed billions of extra funds from private individuals to go towards the election without any tracking.

Yet, financially supporting an organization deemed "terrorist" by the government is not a function of free speech. Now the lines are becoming even more blurred, given Wikileaks isn't even termed a terrorist organization. They are, however, denying the public the ability to support them financially.

By the same logic of the courts, this should be an issue of free speech. Mastercard et al are impeding free speech.

Re:why mastercard? (3, Informative)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487230)

Except the first amendment only applies to the government. If a company wants to impend your speech they can.

Re:why mastercard? (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487240)

Well, you see, the text of the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". In this case, instead of making a law, they're just suppressing speech by strongly suggesting to the corporations that it would be in their best interest to comply.

With the Wikileaks case, the powers that be have demonstrated quite clearly that they don't give a damn what's legal and what's not legal. They're going to do what they're going to do, and screw the Constitution if it gets in the way.

Re:why mastercard? (2)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487246)

this should be an issue of free speech. Mastercard et al are impeding free speech.

Yes it is! Except they can do it.

The Constitution are a limit on the government, not private parties.

Of course, if this happened because of gov pressure is another discussion entirely, and then I'm not sure it's protected by the constitution.

Re:why mastercard? (0)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487250)

No, it shouldn't. All of these companies (Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard) have explicit terms regarding what types of organizations they'll provide services for, and all of them explicitly state that they will not give service to any organization that is intent on breaking US law. Wikileaks IS breaking US law by publishing classified documents. Whistleblower status isn't automatically granted, either; the courts have to validate that defense against charges that are brought.

Re:why mastercard? (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487130)

now would be a good time for google to say that google checkout will only block services that have been convicted guilty under a court of law. This would hit paypal hard, and perhaps even the CC companies. Oh hell, one can only dream of a just world.

Re:why mastercard? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487140)

Mastercard are not the bitches for the US, in some ways it's the opposite. Mastercard and Visa are trying to shut down Wikileaks for the same reason that the US is - because the leaks show it in a negative light.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard?CMP=twt_gu [guardian.co.uk]

But remember kids, it's just "diplomatic gossip" like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC tell you.

Re:why mastercard? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487144)

So money = free speech?

I guess campaign finance laws should be unconstitutional after all.

Re:why mastercard? (-1, Troll)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487182)

By denying us the rights to send our money to this great organization they effectively said: we are the bitches of the US and we condemn free speech, the first amendment and hate the truth. That's why.

Wow, angsty much?

MasterCard is an American company. In America, distributing classified documents is illegal. They stopped allowing people to send money to a criminal (in their jurisdiction) company. Case closed. This has nothing to do with 'free speech' and the First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with this. Wikileaks can still say what they said yesterday, Mastercard is just not supporting them anymore.

Re:why mastercard? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487330)

In America, distributing classified documents is illegal.

Not true. It's illegal to initially leak them if you have clearance. Republishing them is not... note that the New York Times has republished most of the leak; has Mastercard stopped doing business with them?

Re:why mastercard? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34486834)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11938320

Visa Europe has begun suspending payments to whistle-blowing website Wikileaks ahead of carrying out an investigation into the organisation.

It follows a similar move by rival payments processor Mastercard on Tuesday.

[...]

Mastercard said in its statement that it was "in the process of working to suspend the acceptance of Mastercard cards on Wikileaks until the situation is resolved".

Re:why mastercard? (2)

Anonymous Showered (1443719) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486866)

WikiLeaks were collecting donations using MasterCards and VISA as forms of payment on their website, up until the two giants pulled away because they didn't want to be associated with the website.

Re:why mastercard? (1)

Gilandune (1266114) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486890)

Stopped processing donations to Wikileaks

Re:why mastercard? (1)

managementboy (223451) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487072)

same reason. Mastercard stoped their customers from transfering funds to Wikileaks.

Let MasterCard them give it a few days... (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486704)

...and the assault will be over. PayPal and the rest are doing fine now, right?

Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486708)

Reminds me of an article I saw on Techdirt the other day [techdirt.com] pointing out that Visa and Mastercard were getting all high and mighty about morality in regards to Wikileaks but happily fielding transactions for sites like the KKK.

Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34486772)

Where were they getting all high and mighty about morality ?

Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486804)

Visa and Mastercard contribute loads of cash to political candidates -- you may recall recently the whole credit reform stuff making headlines? Well, Congress reached back and asked them to kill wikileaks as a return favor. Good old boys network... has nothing to do with ethics, since they have none: They're a business.

Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486986)

Visa and Mastercard contribute loads of cash to political candidates -- you may recall recently the whole credit reform stuff making headlines? Well, Congress reached back and asked them to kill wikileaks as a return favor. Good old boys network... has nothing to do with ethics, since they have none: They're a business.

More likely that since Wikileaks next target seems to be a major bank, the banks are hinting at the price to be paid if Wikileaks leaks banking information...

Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (1)

tronbradia (961235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487120)

Wait, so your logic is:

  1. 1. Mastercard gives politician money.
  2. 2. Politician screws Mastercard via credit reform
  3. 3. Mastercard now also owes the politician favors?

... Usually it's the other way around.

Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487286)

Alternately:
1. Mastercard does some not-quite-legal stuff to help politician get elected.
2. Politician tells Mastercard to do something, or the evidence of the not-quite-legal stuff will be forwarded to the appropriate Attorney General and the New York Times.
3. Mastercard complies.

Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (2)

ScarKnee (588584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487198)

The credit card reform act did nothing to profit the credit card companies in any way whatsoever. There were a few (relatively speaking) financial institutions/credit card companies that were abusing their "powers" and charging their customers incredibly high penalty interest rates and fees (Capital One, MBNA, etc.).

An entire industry got penalized due to the egregious actions of a few bad guys.

The only thing I appreciated from this regulation is that the credit card companies now have to disclose how long it would take to pay off the entire balance (and how much it would cost in interest) by paying only the minimum payment - that is actually an informative bit of information.

Complying with each piece of the new regulation has cost the affected institutions a lot of money in reprogramming and retraining as well as direct loss of income on not being able to charge overlimit fees (certain situations can create an overlimit condition without the credit card company being at fault) without the customer opting in.

Disclaimer: I work in the industry

Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487370)

> Good old boys network... has nothing to do with ethics, since they have none: They're a business.

I certainly hope you're not one of those "government = good, business = bad" types, given that your post blames the government for the actions of a business. In fact, your conclusion of "business has no ethics" is actually the wrong way around based on your premises. But hey, whatever illogic helps you sleep at night, right?

Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486984)

Came here to post the same thing. The really interesting (and scary bit, depending on your view and the circumstances) bit, like all of this, is that it sets a precedent for putting MC and VISA in the position of being able if not required or urged to aid in censorship, political discourse, and morality by deciding what is and isn't acceptable. The KKK is a great example, but presumably this means that MC and VISA are also:

- Pro-choice
- Pro-life
- Pro gun control
- Anti gun control
- Pro drilling
- Anti drilling

Pick your favorite! Does Delay have a credit card? How about Roman Polanski? It's a slippery slope they should have avoided like the devil.

Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34486988)

IMHO, companies like PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard are not caving in to the government pressure. They are boycotting Wikileaks because it already has buckets of dirt on financial institutions, and so they are afraid that they are next. Unlike the US government, though, they won't be able to just ignore the problem: if they cheated many enough people, they will be hit very hard.

Re:Wikileaks Vs Sites of Ill Repute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487056)

They are boycotting Wikileaks because it already has buckets of dirt on financial institutions, and so they are afraid that they are next.

If there's one thing that's sure to keep wikileaks from attacking them, it would be pissing wikileaks off as much as possible. Wait, no, that can't be right.

This is why digital currency is a non-starter (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34486964)

Dear CC companies,

Some things in life are priceless, your demonstrating the evils of digital currency is one of those things.

Fuck You,

The World.

Forgive me if I'm off topic here... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487016)

I keep trying to read the story at http://www.mastercard.com/ [mastercard.com] but nothings happening.

Whatever... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487026)

This is stupid. It's news for a day or two, then anon goes back to fapping to amateur/child porn, arguing the benefits of an uncircumcised vs circumcised penis, or asking anonymous women to show their breasts.

Plenty of websites they've targeted are still up. Gene Simmons appears to be still collecting a paycheck.

Re:Whatever... (4, Interesting)

linhares (1241614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487252)

well this "operation payback" has struck gold before [arstechnica.com] , against the blackmailing towards alleged filesharers:

Operation Payback hit ACS Law a second time, knocking out the site. In the process of bringing it back up, someone exposed the server's directory structure through the Web instead of showing the website itself. Those conducting Operation Payback immediately moved in and grabbed a 350MB archive of ACS Law e-mails, then threw the entire mass up on sites like The Pirate Bay. This is more than a matter of mere embarrassment. The UK has tougher data protection laws than the US, and the country's Information Commissioner has already made it clear that ACS Law could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of pounds. That's because, in addition to his iTunes receipts ("Hooray for iPads. I love mine," Crossley says at one point) and Amazon purchase orders, the e-mails include numerous attachments filled with all manner of private information: names, addresses, payment details, passwords, revenue splits, business deals.

Tempted..... (1)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487046)

Unfortunately, every time I've download a copy of LOIC from anyplace (including sourceforge) it's been infected with crap......

Re:Tempted..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487248)

OK, so who would voluntarily put a "rootkit" on thier PC? Oh sure they say, we won't do anything bad to anyone good, or steal your personal information and sell it, were nice people here. Ya. Right. I hope all the folks that dowloaded it get busted by thier ISP's and taken off-line. Dumb is Dumb no matter what the "cause" is your interested in.

Link to participate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487054)

Including LOIC setup guide - Operation Payback: http://pastehtml.com/view/1c8i33u.html

High fees? ...Millions of dollars (4, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487148)

Anon DDOS attack? ... Priceless

Only taking down one site at a time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487164)

I don't understand what the big deal is with these attacks. A DDoS of a day or two is only a nuisance really. If they really want to punish people they need prioritize their enemies and keep the worst offenders down for longer periods of time while aiming fractions of their attack elsewhere. No one's really going to change policies due to any attack unless you can keep them down for weeks at a time, not hours or days.

People keep yapping at me about first amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487172)

And i keep answering them, your government is not the threat to free speech, you can vote them out, you can use a munition box in last resort. The true threat to free speech is commercial entity. Against whom do you want to revolt ? Against whom you want to fight ? How can make your voice be heard ? Increasingly, the commercial sector by drowning signal in noise, and by refusing certain type of speech out of business "reason", restrict the speech of people. Sure you can speak around the street on a ballot box, make your own pamphlet. But it isn't 1800 anymore, young people and people my age increasingly see news not coming from electronic medium as low value, and pamphlet as advertising or stuff from fanatic extremist. They have been used to it. Cut the electronic news source because the few journal or ISP don't want to support your business, and you are quite effectively isolated, quarantined, easier to handle. Try to imagine wikileak without a supporting architecture of server. See how far it would have gone...

"An anonymous reader writes..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34487284)

So much win in the way the summary begins.

Adult responses vs epic tantrums (2)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487310)

Regardless of the merits of Wikileaks and the service/information that the supply, I really don't see this as a productive response by their supporters. Rather, it just makes it appear as if a significantly-sized contingent of destructive, if not criminally-minded people support Wikileaks. It may or may not be Wikileaks' fault but the fact that groups are using, albeit incorporeal, violent action to pursue their political agenda is pretty much the definition of terrorism and they're really just making it easier for the government and media to paint Wikileaks with that brush. A campaign against companies which are at the heart of the modern economy is easy enough to paint as a threat to economic stability and therefore "national security" and is probably going to come back to bite them in the ass, one way or another.

Of course, they're going to do what they're going to do. As long as they don't knock out the credit card processing capabilities then it won't affect me since I never go to the websites of these companies. But still, as they say on The Boondocks: "that's not a good look" and will probably have no positive outcome for those participating in the action.

Re:Adult responses vs epic tantrums (2)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487400)

Regardless of the merits of Wikileaks and the service/information that the supply, I really don't see this as a productive response by their supporters. Rather, it just makes it appear as if a significantly-sized contingent of destructive, if not criminally-minded people support Wikileaks. It may or may not be Wikileaks' fault but the fact that groups are using, albeit incorporeal, violent action to pursue their political agenda is pretty much the definition of terrorism and they're really just making it easier for the government and media to paint Wikileaks with that brush. A campaign against companies which are at the heart of the modern economy is easy enough to paint as a threat to economic stability and therefore "national security" and is probably going to come back to bite them in the ass, one way or another.

Of course, they're going to do what they're going to do. As long as they don't knock out the credit card processing capabilities then it won't affect me since I never go to the websites of these companies. But still, as they say on The Boondocks: "that's not a good look" and will probably have no positive outcome for those participating in the action.

So you suggest we ignore the problem of free speech and free press being restricted? That if we disagree what a government or company is doing, we should ignore it?

Remember, this is not an organised group, it is a group of people who are pissed off. Voting hasn't worked. Writing letters hasn't worked. The only thing these companies will listen to is an attack on their profits and bad publicity. And even then they're being very quiet about admitting to it.

Unless, of course, you've got some other genius answer to how to stop us all being controlled in this way.

In any case, if you're relying on Mastercard or Visa for all your money, then you're a fool anyway for relying on one company. There are other methods of paying for stuff, and if there was a major disaster (rather than an attack), you'd have nothing.

Visa and MC have no problem being associated.... (5, Informative)

Ismellpoop (1949100) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487316)

with websites selling fake viagra.
Last year I got a complaint from a Danish ISP that i was spamming their customers. I requested and got forwarded one of my supposed emails. A little bit of poking around I found that the viagra company was based in Hong Kong. Whois told me the address, names, telephone numbers etc. (you'd thing scum like that would hide their info better).
I phoned and emailed Visa, MC, the spam company, even their service provider. The only response was from that Danish ISP their tech guy if you can call him that was complaining about my continual spamming even after I gave him the proof that the email originated from China not Canada. You would think traceroute and whois are kind of basic tools and any dumbass should be able to use them but this guy didn't even know how to look at email header info.
As for visa MC they would not be bothered even though I gave them all the info (btw they were shipping their product from Texas) Visa and MC told be to get bent.

Just the beginning (1)

think_nix (1467471) | more than 3 years ago | (#34487388)

Imagine the shitstorm that will happen , if well something really does happen . Be it Assange or further attempts to take wikileaks completely down.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?