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!

FBI Executes 40 Search Warrants For 'Anonymous'

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the that's-a-lot-of-john-does dept.

Security 221

CWmike writes "Police agencies worldwide are turning up the heat on a loosely organized group of WikiLeaks activists. After yesterday's news that UK police arrested five people, US authorities announced that more than 40 search warrants have been executed in the US in connection with last month's Web-based attacks against companies that had severed ties with WikiLeaks. Investigations are also ongoing in the Netherlands, Germany and France, the FBI said Thursday. Acting on information from German authorities, the FBI raided Dallas ISP Tailor Made Services last month, looking for evidence relating to one of the chat servers used by Anonymous. Another server was traced to Fremont, California's Hurricane Electric. On Thursday, a Web page used by Anonymous to coordinate this latest round of DDoS attacks was offline, and the group's Twitter and Blogspot pages were silent." Reader Ajehals contributes a link to the UK Pirate Party's explanation of how the law applies to DDoS attacks.

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

Why prosecute anonymous? (0, Redundant)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038124)

For the lulz, amiright?

A whole "40" ?... (1)

jmnugent (705421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038128)

.. The internet is trembling in fear.

Re:A whole "40" ?... (3, Interesting)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038702)

It was only done as a scare tactic. Technically, each attack has its own leader based on the cause. I am assuming that the DDoS stuff that made news was all a singular, planned attack. The person running the show wrote the program or had somebody write it and then gave it out. It sounds like what they are after are the ways most of these guys communicate with each other. What I don't understand is how in the hell 4chan is still up while they are doing all of this. They are raiding ISP's, Power plants for electricity all for chat logs, but 4chan is still up. Are you seriously telling me that 4chan's lawyers are so good that the FBI can't touch them? Other Child Porn sites that try and say "what the user posts I have no responsibility for" still get shut down. I know that 4chan is not all script kiddies and child porn, but if this is one of the meeting points, why keep it up unless you want to keep it up. Maybe keep it up so that you have a reason to continue pushing through these stuff.

It is so simple to stop the bigger attacks. I am guessing they use specific irc channels and 4chan to communicate. Ok, shut down that irc server until they can get their stuff together with the people making hacking channels (when I log into irc, there are way too many servers anyway, so no harm no foul for me), and shut down 4chan. That would put a HUGE dent in these attacks. Sure, based on the structure (or lack there-of) with anon, attacks will still happen, but the really big ones will be pretty much gone. But if they find out this information, how are they going to get away with raiding ISP's for chat logs? I am sorry, but that is stupid. There are better ways to go about it.

Re:A whole "40" ?... (1)

Apocryphos (1222870) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038760)

Because if they leave it up they can gather data to incriminate more individuals. Honeypot?

Re:A whole "40" ?... (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038912)

Hmm, it just makes more sense in my head to stop one system rather then allowing for it to continue for prosecution purposes. If you are known for punching people in the face randomly, what would be a better solution to stop you from punching people in the face: cut off your hand, or charge you with assault and battery? Yes, I realize it is also a crime to chop of people's hands, but you can see my point. Stop it at the source. What happened happened, and investigating is only going to stir stuff up and somebody else is going to get hit by a big attack, organized in 4chan.

Re:A whole "40" ?... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038856)

Because 4chan is a lot bigger than /b maybe?

Re:A whole "40" ?... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039226)

/b/ is about half of 4chan, traffic-wise. I saw that on a map somewhere.

Re:A whole "40" ?... (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039106)

4chan is a potential honeypot. If the partyvan doesn't already have a backdoor into that site then they aren't doing their jobs. Besides, I think they'd rather keep most of this shit contained to one corner of the internet instead of taking them down and watching the /b/tards spread to the internet at large.

Re:A whole "40" ?... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039178)

4chan is a WILLING honeypot. they will gladly turn over any data requested by federal authorities. nowadays, the only 'raids' on 4chan are inter-board raids. no one cares about it because, well, it's 4chan being 4chan.

anyone who uses 4chan for organization and coordination of any illicit activity will promptly find themselves in court unless they're very, very careful... and, as you might expect, most of those who do generally don't remain 'anonymous' long.

So much for the 'hacktivism' fad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038196)

Your "7 proxies" is no match for the United States Government, or the corporations for which it stands.

V& (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038212)

Cue the many, many Party Van jokes.

When will they learn? (1)

pcgfx805 (1750684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038220)

Do they not realize the dynamic structure of anonymous? That an activist involved in one campaign might not be involved, or indeed care about, the next? The hint is in the article: "loosely organized".

Re:When will they learn? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038258)

Maybe they do realize but don't care? Their goal here is not to "take down anonymous" it's to prosecute the specific people who broke the law by organizing the DDoS attacks. Whether that means arresting all of anonymous or 1/10000 of it is irrelevant. Note that their warrant did not come from some generic anonymous IRC channel, but the logs of the actual coordination of the attacks.

Re:When will they learn? (-1, Flamebait)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039176)

"Whether that means arresting all of anonymous or 1/10000 of it is irrelevant."

Actually, that is QUITE relevant.

Learn your right to KILL OFFICERS FOR UNLAWFUL ARREST.

http://www.rayservers.com/blog/your-right-of-defense-against-unlawful-arrest [rayservers.com]

Yes, let's see the government try arresting ALL of Anonymous without a shred of evidence. Watch how many government officials and innocent citizens start dying, and watch the civil war begin.

Ever visit /k/? If not, you're sorely naive.

Re:When will they learn? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038278)

Do they not realize the dynamic structure of anonymous? That an activist involved in one campaign might not be involved, or indeed care about, the next?

The hint is in the article: "loosely organized".

This isn't about punishment, it's about deterrence. Remove the sense of anonymous invulnerability and some will think twice about engaging in the activity, even if they got away with it before. It moves from a mindset of "there can't be consequences" to a mindset of "there could be consequences". It's the same tactic the RIAA uses.

Re:When will they learn? (0)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038444)

Yeah, that sure has slowed down piracy, lulz.

Re:When will they learn? (2)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038552)

Yeah, that sure has slowed down piracy, lulz.

It's difficult, maybe impossible, to draw a direct correlation, but the popularity of legitimate media sources has been increasing dramatically. Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Vudu, etc. are all doing quite well. Were the civil lawsuits an influencer? Maybe, maybe not. I sure as hell don't know, but it's interesting to consider.

Cops know that most people speed, but they also know that if they don't write any traffic tickets then everyone will speed.

Re:When will they learn? (5, Interesting)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038938)

Well, I can only speak for me and friends, but for us it's convenience.

After Steam, we never bother pirating games any more. The act of searching, finding a good version, hassling with cracks and all that.. Not worth it. Buy on Steam. Get instant high-speed download, install on multiple computers, automatic updates, easy to reinstall if computer borks... Pirating games? Feh, too much work (while still being much less than buying in store and mucking about with CD's and such).

Music? After Spotify, we never bother to download. Too much hassle. Spotify have almost all avaliable, streaming, easy sharing, sync to my android.. Downloading, waiting, finding the one single actually good rip? Feh, screw that.

So, the only thing left is movies and tv shows. Here in Norway the only alternative we got is Voddler, which is lower quality and less convenient (forced commercials? feh) than downloading. And DVD? "You have to see all these trailers of years-old movies and silly anti pirate ads first! Muahahaha" - Seriously.. Even when I buy DVD's, the first thing I do is to rip them to remove the crap and the reliance on the physical disk. Get a good streaming service (with MINIMUM youtube 720p quality and either own bought movies (no silly renting please) or reasonable monthly fee), and I'll stop pirating that too.

It's simple. Video content industry is getting their ass handed to them on both quality and convenience. Get something that is at least equal in those to what the pirates offer, and you'll see an uptake.

Re:When will they learn? (1)

Excelsior (164338) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038988)

I think it quite likely has slowed down piracy. I used to download pirated movies many years ago. But as I've grown older and gained a house, cars, stock funds and 401ks, and meanwhile watched many people get sued over piracy, I've definitely changed my ways. I've come to realize that $15 for a DVD, or better yet $8.99/month for Netflix streaming, isn't worth worrying about versus potentially losing my house by getting sued into bankruptcy. Perhaps the risk is minor, but it's still a risk, and the lawsuits are what made that risk real in my mind. Granted this is anecdotal, but I would bet I'm not alone.

The point of enforcement is to decrease the amount, not eliminate the criminal element. There will always be criminals willing to break the law Prosecuting people who contribute to Anonymous will have the same effect of making some people think twice about joining a DDOS network, just like I think twice about accessing copyrighted material on a P2P network.

Re:When will they learn? (2)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039136)

Piracy is far, far more widespread than 4chan chucklefuckery.

Re:When will they learn? (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038462)

True, but if they fail to get anybody in jail, all it's gonna do is provide definite proof that Anonymous is untouchable by the world's governments, helping them attract more people into their ranks.

I'd say I'd hope the government planned this well beforehand, but I'd rather they lose and Anonymous get even larger. Which is what'll likely happen, given how effective these "public displays" tend to be.

Re:When will they learn? (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038628)

True, but if they fail to get anybody in jail, all it's gonna do is provide definite proof that Anonymous is untouchable by the world's governments, helping them attract more people into their ranks.

I'd say I'd hope the government planned this well beforehand, but I'd rather they lose and Anonymous get even larger. Which is what'll likely happen, given how effective these "public displays" tend to be.

That's a highly unlikely scenario. There are existing laws covering DDoS, and I'm sure of three things: (1) the targets have forensic logs recording, at a minimum, timestamps with source IP addresses, (2) the ISPs have names and street addresses associated with those IP addresses and (3) there will be lots of folks who used their own systems for the attacks.

Re:When will they learn? (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039208)

True, but if they fail to get anybody in jail, all it's gonna do is provide definite proof that Anonymous is untouchable by the world's governments, helping them attract more people into their ranks.

Which will make it imperative that some people are persecuted to the full extent of the law.

Re:When will they learn? (1)

hldn (1085833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038600)

It moves from a mindset of "there can't be consequences" to a mindset of "there could be consequences".

in other words, consequences will never be the same?

Re:When will they learn? (2)

samriel (1456543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038286)

You're exactly right, and that's why they hate Anonymous so much. Most other terror organizations can be destroyed merely by taking out their head men. Anon doesn't work that way. Arrest the LOICers, Anon gets pissed off and LOICs. Arrest Moot, Anon gets pissed off and LOICs. Do nothing, Anon gets pissed off and LOICs. They have no control over them, and that's why they can't stand them.

Re:When will they learn? (0)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038350)

well, they can do a ww2 japanese american style concentration camp for the anons. So much for democracy and freedom right?

Re:When will they learn? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038510)

Most other terror organizations

How are they a terror organization? Where is the terror?

Re:When will they learn? (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038652)

I think an organization making a sustained and coordinated attack against financial infrastructure comes close enough. Sure they attacked only the customer facing facets of those organizations while the critical stuff chugged along just fine, but it's still pretty alarming that they really even tried.

Also, I think their well documented history of targeting strangers with harassment and death threats (just for the lulz) qualifies.

Re:When will they learn? (1)

Krojack (575051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038664)

Really??

Definitions of terror on the Web:

        * panic: an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety
        * a person who inspires fear or dread; "he was the terror of the neighborhood"
        * a very troublesome child
        * the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons); "he used terror to make them confess"

If you do something they don't like then they will terrorize you by trying to shutdown your computes. This "loosely organized group" is nothing different then the group of bullies from IRC that would threaten to bot flood your channel or packet flood your IP address unless you did what they demanded of you. In fact I bet it's made up of the same people. The third definition best describes them "very troublesome children".

Re:When will they learn? (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038298)

Anonymous is literally any group of people online willing to work together on a common action. That's impossible to end because it's woven into the very fabric of social interaction of which the internet is but a subset. The internet just created a critical mass effect by allowing an effectively limitless number of people to agree to do things together virtually instaneously. Anonymous is the power of people realizing that they don't need organizations to accomplish simple goals, just people willing to agree to do something once.

Re:When will they learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038524)

Anonymous is literally any group of people online willing to work together on a common action. That's impossible to end because it's woven into the very fabric of social interaction of which the internet is but a subset. The internet just created a critical mass effect by allowing an effectively limitless number of people to agree to do things together virtually instaneously. Anonymous is the power of people realizing that they don't need organizations to accomplish simple goals, just people willing to agree to do something once.

Sorry but you are confusing the fools/pawns/losers who willingly installed the DDoS client with Anonymous. You are placing way too much faith/credit on social networking on the net. Anonymous is not what you think they are and they are going down fast really soon.

Re:When will they learn? (3, Funny)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038682)

Actually I am relatively unfamiliar with the LOIC operation, and I said jack-all about 'social networking' because even though that's what worries governments, that's the exact opposite of Anonymous. Sounds more like you don't know what Anonymous is and you're projecting your ignorance on me. Here's a hint newfag, I used to hang on #insub before there was an ED, was reading SA when JeffK was a new feature, been on 4chan since teh Rei, and literally partied hard with Jason Fortuny (who makes fine burgers, you'd be surprised to know). The only people who have more net cred than me were around before Endless September, but thanks for giving me an excuse to whip out my e-peen.

Re:When will they learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038438)

Do they not realize the dynamic structure of anonymous? That an activist involved in one campaign might not be involved, or indeed care about, the next?

The hint is in the article: "loosely organized".

I'm sorry but you have bought into the mythology of Anonymous. They are not a flash mob. Anonymous is a group of hackers/pervs that hang out on /b at 4chan and like to harass little girls. They are not the champions of free speech or as loosely organized as you would like to believe. The key word is "organized". Terror groups are also "loosely" organized into small cells that do not directly communicate with the main leader and yet they can be infiltrated and taken down.

Re:When will they learn? (1)

PreparationH67 (1971850) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038692)

It would seem a lot of people conveniently forget the whole "harassment of underage girls" and "death threats" thing when they try and defend anonymous. I hope the FBI takes some of them down so the other goons get it in their heads that there are consequences to crimes, because they are, in fact, criminals. You cannot just go around DDoS'ing ever site you don't agree with, and anyone who tries to equate this with a boycott is a moron. A boycott is a refusal to use the services of or buy goods from a company whose policies you disagree with. What they are doing is no different from throwing bricks through store front windows to cause damage and shut the business down. Just because the store happens to be online does not make it any less severe. People need to understand that and just because they can't get all of them doesn't mean that it is futile. If the police can only catch one pedophile out of a group of 20, does that mean they shouldn't? Law enforcement needs to prove that these people can be caught and that they are not as anonymous as they think.

Name similarities (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038242)

I just hope the FBI can distinguish those dastardly members of Anonymous from my perfectly innocuous sometime nom-de-plume.

Anonymous cannot be destroyed (2)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038246)

Please allow me to re-iterate this silly argument that I've heard before:

Anonymous cannot be destroyed by prosecuting its individual members. In order to charge someone, the prosecution must first de-anonymize that person, which immediately voids their membership in Anonymous.

Re:Anonymous cannot be destroyed (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038354)

Of course, if they got pinched, it begs the question of how they were "anonymous" to begin with.

Re:Anonymous cannot be destroyed (2)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038502)

Anonymous is not about anonymity in that sense. Anonymous is anonymous in that it could be anyone and everyone.
Think Fight Club's "Project Mayhem".

Re:Anonymous cannot be destroyed (2)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039062)

I would imagine that only foolish members of Anonymous don't attempt to preserve/protect their anonymity.

Anonymity is technically hard (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039160)

It's pretty hard to make your connections anonymous the whole time. Tor is mighty slow and blocked in many sites. I'm not sure which of the other options are very reliable. Open wifi is not always available. And if it's your neighbor's, well, that's pretty close to you.

Re:Anonymous cannot be destroyed (1)

mob)barley (1377683) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038426)

They're not trying to destroy it, rather to PWN it.

Re:Anonymous cannot be destroyed (2)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038450)

Anonymous is a cult where everybody gets to be the leader.

Re:Anonymous cannot be destroyed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038800)

the prosecution must first de-anonymize that person, which immediately voids their membership in Anonymous.

Anonymous is like a quantum Shroedinger's cat!

Re:Anonymous cannot be destroyed (2)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038852)

Anonymous is like a quantum Shroedinger's cat!

Torturing poor kittens with radioactive elements and hydrocyanic acid? Sounds to me like Schrödinger was part of Anonymous.

So? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038256)

M4221V3 4C75 0f V4nD4L15m 4cR055 57473 l1n35 0V3r 4 k0MM0n K4rr13r?
15 4nY0N3 r34lly 5h0Ck3d? 1 M34N R34LLy? l00X L1K3 4 8uNcH pH0R 4Ch4N 5Cr1p7k1DD135 r G01N' 70 83 0wn3d..

Wikileaks DDos attacks? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038264)

Any news on those involved in the DDoS attacks against wikileaks? No arrest yet?

Re:Wikileaks DDos attacks? (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038314)

Of course not. Wikileaks doesn't have to money and "friends" like Visa and MasterCard to aid these investigations.

Re:Wikileaks DDos attacks? (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038546)

Wikileaks has its own set of lawyers and big piles of money. (They say they require millions of dollars a month to operate.) They are likely just busy doing something else, like defending themselves against other threats.

Re:Wikileaks DDos attacks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038598)

Wikileaks is not protected by any of the governments involved here. If it were a legitimate operation not breaking laws (it is), and hosted in one of these jurisdictions, then maybe it'd get some protection.

Re:Wikileaks DDos attacks? (2)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038650)

Any news on those involved in the DDoS attacks against wikileaks? No arrest yet?

Yeah, I'm sure Wikileaks is cooperating with law enforcement by giving them their data logs. Yup, that's certainly taking place.

Re:Wikileaks DDos attacks? (1)

supervillainsf (820395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038746)

Re:Wikileaks DDos attacks? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038782)

You mean that SD story that was revealed to be totally untrue and later retracted? Yeah, that's the one.

Re:Wikileaks DDos attacks? (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038854)

The people that targetted wikileaks were probably people that actually knew what they were doing, and weren't just blindly running a DDOS program they got from 4chan.

My understanding is... (2)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038312)

It's more of a "movement" than a "group" no?

FBI (5, Insightful)

damicatz (711271) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038320)

It's nice to know that when corporate interests are threatened, the US Government is more than willing to come to the rescue and do their bidding. Of course, when Goldman Sachs lies, cheats, and defrauds the American people, the US government looks the other way.

Re:FBI (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038410)

Err...they didn't look the other way. They were willing to do whatever it takes to rescue Goldman Sachs too.

Re:FBI (1)

Venik (915777) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038708)

Err...they didn't look the other way. They were willing to do whatever it takes to rescue Goldman Sachs too.

If they didn't rescue Goldman Sachs, who would have given Facebook the billion dollars? Thanks to the prompt response by the Federal government, I may finally get a working Facebook app for my iPhone. So think before you talk!

Re:FBI (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038420)

You do know that this group terrorize and sends death threats to underage girls?

yeah, a bunch of wonderful people~

Re:FBI (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038536)

You do know that this group terrorize and sends death threats to underage girls?

Underage? How old does a girl need to be to legally receive death threats?

Re:FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038582)

You do know that this group terrorize and sends death threats to underage girls?

yeah, a bunch of wonderful people~

Yes. The powers of federal agents. Fear the powers that can make your young life as miserable as they like to.

Re:FBI (1)

the_enigma_1983 (742079) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038630)

Yes, some people did, and yes those people who did do such things deserve to get punished. But by the very nature that anonymous works, there's no guarantee that the people involved in that issue were also the ones mentioned in this article. Yes, horrible things have been done under the guise of anonymous, but it's not always the same people every time.

this is Americuh! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039018)

Ain't no law against bein' stupid.
Or bein' a jackass.
Or being a stupid jackass.

hell, we give people their own teevee shows on MTv for that.

Re:FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038754)

You do know that this group terrorize and sends death threats to underage girls?

yeah, a bunch of wonderful people~

And by "this group" you mean any number of individuals who may or may not have done other things? Have you ever been? Many people who are for one thing are against another - ie/ they might be pro-invading Habbo-Hotel, but anti-harrassing girls, or anti-both, or pro-both. Consider each person is an individual, and there really is not an actual group of any co-ordination, and if you think there is you're buying in to the hype being dished out. Someone might make a flyer saying "on this day we are doing THIS!" and then some people might think "oh ok I'll look out for this" and other people might think "man that looks pointless/boring/retarded and against my interests/not like porn" etc.

Re:FBI (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038820)

You have failed to understand one of the most fundamental aspects of Anonymous... there is no group.

Re:FBI (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038936)

That's not why the FBI is after them though. They have been doing that for years and nobody gave a shit. But as soon as they make some rich corporations look bad... well... we get to see who really makes the law.

Re:FBI (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039190)

The guy who nabbed Palin's email wound up in the joint, and I can guarantee you that others have been busted before as well. They just didn't make a big splash or even mention Anonymous because it was likely small incidents, ie, this guy was sending death threat emails and was prosecuted, but it's entirely possible that the cops never even knew that 4chan was involved.

Re:FBI (2)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039006)

You do know that this group terrorize and sends death threats to underage girls?

yeah, a bunch of wonderful people~

Even I know that describing Anonymous as a "group" completely misses the point that Anonymous is comprised of people of many nebulous, amorphous and ever-changing affiliations, any two of whom are at any time are likely to be working at cross-purposes or do utterly contradictory things.

You -- and everyone else, in particular politicians and media organisations -- appear to be determined to put a face on something that by definition has none.

So yes. Some of the [people who DDoS VISA and Paypal] may also be [people who send death threats to underage girls]. In fact, that's probably a given. But to say that those groups of people are one and the same because they happen to be comprised of people who self-identify as anonymous Internet users is disingenuous at best.

Re:FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038472)

The US government absolutely does not look the other way when Goldman Sachs lies, cheats and defrauds the American people!

That is absurd! The US government is clearly helping Goldman Sachs to lie, cheat and defraud the American people.

Plain view discovery (1)

chordoflife (1984062) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038322)

Judging by the contents of some of their boards, plain view discovery might lead to somebody getting nailed by child pornography or depravity law. Anxiously awaiting the headlines.

Uh oh, I'm in *so* much trouble now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038340)

Why, oh why, didn't I set up a /. account and log-in years ago???

Re:Uh oh, I'm in *so* much trouble now (1)

lordmetroid (708723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038432)

Ahhhhhh! Anonymous is here, run for your life!

During arrest (1)

Kvasio (127200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038342)

- Excuse me, officer, you're mistaken. You are looking for A.Nonymous and my name is .......

Re:During arrest (1)

bjb_admin (1204494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038390)

Reminds me of when the police roughed up a fellow during the G20 protests in Canada, when asked what his name was he answered (truthfully) Adam Nobody. Yes, his surname was legally Nobody. That answer didn't go over so well though.

Re:During arrest (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038514)

Did he or a parent have it changed to that a while ago?
/curious

Re:During arrest (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038822)

Yes he changed it. He said "it makes for better puns". Apparently the police disagree.

Not a very smart move, but not being smart is a terrible reason to be repeatedly kicked in the face by the police.

Even if he was lying to the police their actions were unwarranted and a serious violation of his rights.

how about being on "Jersey Shore"? (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039140)

but not being smart is a terrible reason to be repeatedly kicked in the face by the police.

hmmmm, I'm terribly conflicted about this...

Nobody has seen this yet? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038400)

How about the DDoS against Wikileaks? (5, Insightful)

thue (121682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038408)

I am sure that the US is pursuing those who DDoSed WikiLeaks [msn.com] with equal energy.

Re:How about the DDoS against Wikileaks? (2)

Spazzz (577014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038606)

Yeah that says a lot about fair and balanced enforcement of the law, doesn't it? The FBI is a bunch of incompetent, corrupt twits who will always go after the lowest hanging fruit.

Re:How about the DDoS against Wikileaks? (3, Interesting)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038618)

Wikileaks is hosted in the US? When did that happen?

Re:How about the DDoS against Wikileaks? (1, Flamebait)

Corbets (169101) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038706)

Mod parent up. Jurisdiction, kids.

Re:How about the DDoS against Wikileaks? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038838)

So... what about the coordinated international effort? Only for some?

Re:How about the DDoS against Wikileaks? (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038636)

Irony:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/01/206200/Wikileaks-DDoS-Attacker-Arrested-Equipment-Seized

Re:How about the DDoS against Wikileaks? (1)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038676)

Probably this would be merely an avenue created by them, to ease the way for their true goals. Yes I am a cynic.

The only this that separates the US from the other "great firewall" countries is the US is about 5-10 years behind. The US will catch up soon enough. The US Administration will have their way.

Re:How about the DDoS against Wikileaks? (4, Insightful)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038944)

If I remember correctly, wasn't the DDoS of WikiLeaks done with a traditional malware controlled botnet, while the Anonymous DDoS's were done with an opt-in botnet? To me, it seems like that would make it easier to track down the members of Anonymous who participated than it would be to track down those who were controlling the anti-Wikileaks botnet.

Write your congressman and demand transparency! (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038562)

I'm sure the subject line drew some rolled eyes or a wistful smile. You know why? Because we all know that any legal avenues to get what we want from the government are closed. And guess what kind of avenues people take when their legal ones are exhausted. The French Revolution was illegal as hell, too.

Re:Write your congressman and demand transparency! (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038660)

Nope, didn't get me to roll my eyes. Those who support wikileaks have *not* exhausted the legal avenues available to them. At least try. Seriously, write your congressman. Comparing this to other events in history at this point is just dumb. I myself wouldn't mind a bit more transparency (not as much as wikileaks, though). You'd probably be surprised of the amount of support you'd get if you did this with democracy.

My connectivity must be magical (1)

Spazzz (577014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038576)

Because anonops.ru is up for me.

Good. (1)

MWoody (222806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038592)

I was wondering when they'd start doing this one. Many of the attacks were done using a program called "low orbit ion cannon," essentially an opt-in botnet: run the program and it waits for a signal from a master node, then starts spamming requests at the specified target. Meaning that the participants in the attacks, far from the usual unknowing and unwilling infected, were in fact choosing specifically to join in the action. What's more, the nature of a DDoS makes proxy use counter-productive and ineffective (all attacks come from a small number of proxy IPs, being easily blockable, and you DDoS the proxy long before the target).

The end result? A list of unprotected ip addresses for a bunch of idiot thugs and 13-year old kids, not at all anonymous. Well done, geniuses.

Re:Good. (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038898)

Mod this up!

Re:Good. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038930)

I think you're missing the point. People knew they were putting themselves at risk. It was deemed to be worth the risk because joining those attacks was considered the right thing to do. Perhaps people just thought with thousands of people joining in what were the chances of them being pulled before a judge over it.

It's silly to think that people had no idea what they were doing. I don't think anyone could know so little about computers as to believe they were 'anonymous' while using LOIC.

interesting (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038696)

I'm kind of interested in what's going to happen here. It was widely reported on every news affiliate that Anonymous was PROTESTING these companies. I heard several news casters compare the DDOS attack to a picket line outside a business. The picketers make it harder for customers to go to the business, just like a DDOS attack does.

I'd like to see what the supreme court makes of it. After all, the companies that were targeted certainly had the means to thwart the attack, Paypal and Amazon didn't even have a hiccup.

Re:interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038920)

I'm kind of interested in what's going to happen here. It was widely reported on every news affiliate that Anonymous was PROTESTING these companies. I heard several news casters compare the DDOS attack to a picket line outside a business. The picketers make it harder for customers to go to the business, just like a DDOS attack does.

I'd like to see what the supreme court makes of it. After all, the companies that were targeted certainly had the means to thwart the attack, Paypal and Amazon didn't even have a hiccup.

That is a really bad analogy. A successful DDoS attack does not make it harder for customer to go to the business, it makes it impossible. A better analogy would be an arsonist burning down a building or cutting the power to a building. Did you miss the whole "DENIAL OF SERVICE" in Distributed Denial of Service attack?

A successful attack is not a protest but rather denying the right of lawful citizens to conduct commerce. It is terrorism.

I'm Spartacus! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038718)

I'm Spartacus!

Website access is not unauthorized (4, Interesting)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038742)

The problem with calling a DDOS "unauthorized access" is that the access is implicitly authorized by the server being on the internet. The real world analogy here is getting your hundred closest friends to visit WalMart and go through the checkout lines VERY VERY SLOWLY. You have the intent to negatively impact their business, and you are acting recklessly, but that is only 2/3 (well, more like 9/10) of the criteria for violating the laws in question here. You are not using their store without authorization (they have to TELL YOU TO LEAVE before they have any legal relief for your being there).

The lesson here? (4, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038828)

Don't be a useful idiot. Don't take your marching orders from people on the interet who don't give a fuck about you. A DDOS attack like the one 4-chan (let's call them what they are) did, could have actually been anonymous had the morons actually been hackers. This is what it looks like when one pseudo-hacker can write a DDOS program, and a bunch of tech-illiterate morons run it on their network without actually knowing what it's doing, or how to mask their identity.

Save the effort (2)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038840)

Can't we just save the effort and convict 'Anonymous' in absentia? It'd be much more efficient.

anonymous vs scientology (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038896)

It makes you wonder how effective it actually is in some cases. I hope it is able to continue its work against scientology.

Whew! (4, Funny)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039068)

There for a minute I read the headline as "FBI Executes 40 Search Warrants For 'Anonymous Coward'", which is why I logged in to make this post.

A great use of time (1, Insightful)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039078)

A great use of time and resources. What has humanity come to? Aren't there more pressing matters to attend to but prosecute random people because they may or may not have scared huge corporations ?

Also on the pirateparty UK site I have to rage at vagueness of the laws quoted here:

1. A person is guilty of an offence if-
a. he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer;

Define "unauthorised" ? (and obviously this doesn't apply to women...)

1. This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the act-
a. to impair the operation of any computer;

So this applies to ISPs doing some filtering since they are crippling my computer's capabilties?

b. to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer;

You mean people cannot "hinder" access to their data by using passwords and such ? so root accounts should have no password ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?