Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Cybercrime Director Comments On Hacktivism

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the please-don't-blow-up-parliment-thanks dept.

Crime 254

bdcny7927 writes "In an exclusive interview with CIO.com, the FBI official in charge of cybercrime speaks for the first time with the media specifically about hacktivism. Here, Assistant Executive Director Shawn Henry describes the threats hacktivists pose, the challenges associated with investigating them, and the FBI's success disrupting these groups. He also delivers a special message to hacktivists." The so-called special message: "My organization is a believer in civil rights and civil liberties, and the first amendment is something I hold very dear personally and professionally. I have no problem with people picketing and protesting in the street. I get all that. But the freedom for me to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. If you are impinging on others' rights, that's illegal."

cancel ×

254 comments

the first amendment is something I hold very dear (5, Insightful)

redmid17 (1217076) | more than 2 years ago | (#38428944)

Except when it gets in the way of my job or something I want to do. Also the 4th amendment is definitely out. Can't have that

Re:the first amendment is something I hold very de (5, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429006)

Yes, that was my thought exactly.

We had those amendments and civil liberties. They are in the process of being destroyed or made to be impotent often by the companies being attacked. Do you have any suggestions as to the correct course of action in the face of that Mr. Shawn Henry?

Re:the first amendment is something I hold very de (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429112)

"when your right to free speech conflicts with my sacred right to business profit and the unimpeded influence of politics and policy, then I must strenuously object to your material support for terrorism and your declared enmity toward America."

Mod parent up. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429510)

Or to put it another way ... "But the freedom for me to swing my arm ends where your nose begins".

And when the "person" being affected does not have a nose?
Because said "person" is a corporation?

The property rights of corporations have become more important than human rights.

Corporations are not people. Despite what the law would say.

Re:Mod parent up. (4, Informative)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429720)

Commercial Law invented the Legal Fiction that is the PERSON. The plural form of PERSON is PEOPLE.

You don't hear about Man or Woman in a commercial court or read it in a contract because you cannot contract with a Man or a Woman. You can only contract with the PERSON.

So, yes, Corporations ARE PEOPLE. A Man is a Man and a Woman is a Woman. When you talk about a Man as a PERSON you are associating him with his Legal Fiction. You do this if you don't know the difference between a Sovereign Being with a Soul and a Contractual Partner, or you are deliberately referring to the PERSON.

Re:the first amendment is something I hold very de (0, Flamebait)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429170)

Yes, grow up and stop being so melodramatic.

We have so many freedoms in that area that people who violate the law are way outside their lane. There are so many opportunities for people to do it lawfully that it's irresponsible for them to do it otherwise.

How, precisely, are your rights and liberties being destroyed? What can you no longer do that you could do 20 years ago?

And if you do come up with a concrete example - please ask yourself sincerely if it's because of the FBI or because of selfish brats like Anonymous that things have changed.

Re:the first amendment is something I hold very de (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429190)

Board a plane without being sexually assaulted?

Re:the first amendment is something I hold very de (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429346)

Dance in public without being arrested?

Re:the first amendment is something I hold very de (5, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429394)

  • Being able to board a train or bus without having my bag be searched (ostensibly for weapons, but really for drugs).
  • Being able to post a video criticizing Universal Studios copyright policy with licensed music by famous artists without having it be taken down.
  • Be able to play games on a decent computer without having that computer run software that spies on me and makes sure I'm not doing something the company would prefer I not do.
  • Being reasonably confident that my representative cares more about what I and 50 of my neighbors say than what his or her corporate sponsor says (though that's been a serious problem for more than 20 years).
  • Being sure that if Watergate happened again it would be exposed and the president forced to resign over it.

Those are just some of the things I've lost in the past 20 years. Some of those are related to the first amendment, some to the fourth. Some of them are rights we've always had, but are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Some represent a weakening of first amendment rights due to the right being made useless for its intended purpose (like getting my representative to pay attention to me).

Re:the first amendment is something I hold very de (-1, Troll)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38430024)

Being able to board a train or bus without having my bag be searched (ostensibly for weapons, but really for drugs).

You can board a train or bus without being searched, if YOU OWN the plane or bus in question. If someone else owns it, then you are going to follow their rules or be denied service, just like you as the owner of a vehicle can refuse to give anyone you want a ride for any reason. Nothing here has changed.

Being able to post a video criticizing Universal Studios copyright policy with licensed music by famous artists without having it be taken down.

You can post a video on your own website that is critical of any company you want using whatever content you have legal right to publish. If it is youtubes website then you will follow youtubes rules or be denied service. If the criticism you post is baseless, you may be subject to lawsuits. Nothing here has changed.

Be able to play games on a decent computer without having that computer run software that spies on me and makes sure I'm not doing something the company would prefer I not do.

You can play games on a computer without being spied on. Disconnect it from the internet and write your own game code. If its someone elses game code, and they require internet for communication, and you agree to have info communicated, then accept the terms or don't purchase or play the game. Nothing here has changed.

Being reasonably confident that my representative cares more about what I and 50 of my neighbors say than what his or her corporate sponsor says (though that's been a serious problem for more than 20 years).

Have people who sought and gained and wielded power ever cared what the bum in the street thinks ? No. The bum in the street brings nothing to the table, and odds are high he speaks from a position of ignorance and irresponsibility, not from a position of success and responsibility, and this is why the street bums voice is ignored. He can't manage his own life, let alone national policies. Nothing here has changed.

Being sure that if Watergate happened again it would be exposed and the president forced to resign over it.

Politics and governance are dirty businesses, and society and the individual are at odds. It has always been this way. Scandals are swept under the rug if possible. If not possible, damage control plans are executed. FYI ... watergate was exposed, and Nixon did resign from office. Nothing here has changed.

In summary, none of the things you claim are different now, are any different than they always have been. You haven't lost anything that someone else wasn't gifting you in the first place. It was theirs to take away.

Re:the first amendment is something I hold very de (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429416)

How, precisely, are your rights and liberties being destroyed? What can you no longer do that you could do 20 years ago?

Be "suspected" of terrorism and yet not have due process completely thrown out the window when I'm being investigated?

And if you do come up with a concrete example - please ask yourself sincerely if it's because of the FBI or because of selfish brats like Anonymous that things have changed.

I could take the easy route and point out that the Patriot Act was passed years before Anonymous was ever conceived, but instead I'll point out the stronger fact: each and every piece of bad legislation is 100% the responsibility of the government that passes it. So the answer to your question can never, ever be the latter.

Re:the first amendment is something I hold very de (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429572)

be brown-skinned without being monitored by the fbi?

Re:the first amendment is something I hold very de (1)

bob')DROP TABLE user (2535244) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429674)

Downloading my TV shows from the pirate bay so I can stop paying for cable?

Re:the first amendment is something I hold very de (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429984)

You haven't paid attention in the last month.

NDAA has just eliminated due process.

If you are a "hacktivist" you will be accused of terrorism (this has already been bandied about by various politicians, so I'm not making it up) and you will simply disappear.

Not kidding.

Even the guy over at Bad Astronomy is highly upset. You should be too.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/19/a-public-letter-to-the-us-government-upon-the-passing-of-ndaa/ [discovermagazine.com]

--
BMO

Exactly (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429274)

My organization is a believer in civil rights and civil liberties

That's odd, because the organization your organization works for isn't.

Re:Exactly (4, Informative)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429314)

"My organization is a believer in civil rights and civil liberties"

Yes. We know: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org]

Re:Exactly (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429328)

"We're the secret police for democracy!

well... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38428966)

"The so-called special message: "My organization is a believer in civil rights and civil liberties, and the first amendment is something I hold very dear personally and professionally. I have no problem with people picketing and protesting in the street. I get all that. But the freedom for me to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. If you are impinging on others' rights, that's illegal."

so what? any of us could say that.

reminds me of calling out racists to their face; they typically respond "YOU'RE the racist!" dumb shit; you've no evidence nor anything i've just said to base that upon. stupid fuck... racists and religious zealots never think of themselves as such. it's only for those outside of their bubbleworlds to decide such.

fuck off, fb-bit. ANONYMOUS RULES.

Re:WHO RULES!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38428988)

O'DOYLE RULES!

Re:well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429032)

is this an example of ANONYMOUS policy making at work? Not very impressive...

Re:well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429324)

is this an example of a "good german" denier enabling his or her puppetmaster? not very impressive either.

Re:well... (0, Flamebait)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429504)

No, Anonymous is a worthless, self-righteous sack of shit "organization" who gives a bad name to people are actually trying to help and make the world better.

Tough talk. Which... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38428998)

bank will he go after first?

Are you a believer? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429014)

>>believer in civil rights and civil liberties
I believe as much in Santa Claus as the FBI does in civil rights and civil liberties

Re:Are you a believer? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429476)

The problem is that your parents tried to convince you that both of those fallacies were truth...and some of you were stupid enough to believe it.

That'll be a hit with Anon (2)

ddt (14627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429020)

"Hacking is illegal." Wow, and the sky is blue. I'm sure Anonymous will be deeply moved by that one.

I'll bet this first public FBI chat will be rewarded by Anonymous in some way that he won't like.

I shudder to think who would win in a hacking duel, Anonymous or the FBI.

Re:That'll be a hit with Anon (3, Informative)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429046)

FBI, because Anonymous is just bunch of script kiddies.

Re:That'll be a hit with Anon (4, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429162)

That's working under the assumption that the FBI is more competent than a bunch of script kiddies, and not taking into consideration that while the majority of the people involved in a particular operation are merely script kiddies, there are often more competent people involved.

Re:That'll be a hit with Anon (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429542)

"while the majority of the people involved in a particular operation are merely script kiddies, there are often more competent people involved."

That's the part that few people understand. You get a thousand, or ten thousand, dummies worldwide to launch pointless annoyance attacks, while as few as a dozen competent people sit back and evaluate the responses and defenses. When they find a crack in the defenses, then they exploit it.

I'm fairly sure (can't be positive) that the FBI has some pretty sharp hackers among their ranks. But, Anon is a lot bigger than the FBI, and they have plenty of cannon fodder to keep the FBI's real hackers busy. The FBI can claim a "victory" when they bust a few stupid script kiddies, but they are only grasping at smoke and mirrors, while the real actors remain invisible behind proxy chains, and botnets.

Re:That'll be a hit with Anon (1, Informative)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429576)

DDOSing can be easily separated from actual attacks do nothing to "evaluate responses and defenses". It's only a nuisance and does nothing else than overload the systems or bandwidth. It does absolutely nothing to hide traces or provide information about security vulnerabilities.

Re:That'll be a hit with Anon (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429660)

DOSSing can in some cases cover an attack. It's likely to overwhelm IPS or IDS devices many of theses things stop looking at every packet when the load gets to great, that might allow you to get a malicious payload through while the devices slogs through all the BS DDOs junk traffic. DDOS traffic will also Possibly fill logs resulting in rotation that may conceal finger prints of a real attack and if logs are kept cause SIM tools to grind to a halt thwarting analysis.

Re:That'll be a hit with Anon (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429974)

As DarkOx points out, DDOSing can *help* to cover tracks.

However, you will not that I didn't specifically mention DDOSing. I mentioned "pointless nuisance attacks", of which DDOSing is a subset. LOIC and HOIC are the script kiddie's primary tools, but they are most certainly not restricted to them. I haven't heard from L0pht Heavy Industries in quite a long while - but most assuredly, someone, somewhere, has repackaged and redistributed L0pht's tools, if they haven't actually improved on them.

Re:That'll be a hit with Anon (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429506)

FBI are fucking morons. Their position requires them to be naive to get it. They gotta bust or intimidate(entice the weak-minded to comply) and or pay people (entice the greedy to comply) to get half-ass intel created and procured through the intelligence analog of so-called metrics [slashdot.org] of 'intelligence' gathering.

What every right-thinking individual should ask of FBI agents is,"Agent Smith, how angry does it make you to know that Father O'Malley was allowed to rape you in the ass as a kid, and also showed you how to focus that anger on others?"

Re:That'll be a hit with Anon (2)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429144)

I shudder to think who would win in a hacking duel, Anonymous or the FBI.

Methinks that while the Anonymous script kiddies are throwing back another slug of that hard core Red Bull and giggling at the thought of how tough they are to engage in a "hacking duel", the FBI will just say "screw this" and let the children hammer away at some honeypot and generally waste time (which is all they usually manage to accomplish) while the agents quietly drive off to their parents' homes and invite themselves in to have a little chat.

("Hacking duel"? Really? Oh dear...)

Try looking beyond your own circle for a change. Don't be so stupidly insular - read Donne. Remember? "No man is an island..."

And there's no such thing as being truly anonymous (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429342)

If you started going after someone like the FBI systematically, they'd track you down. You aren't anonymous on the Internet. Everything you do can be tracked. Now usually it isn't because why would anyone bother? However if there was a reason, it could be done. If they continually attacked the FBI, you'd better believe that the FBI, and other government agencies, would work to track them down.

Basically when it comes to someone with the resources of the US government it is all a matter of if they care enough to spend the resources to make you stop.

The ultimate example would be Bin Laden. Here is a man who is skilled in guerrilla warfare, knowledgeable in intelligence and counterintelligence, protected by zealous followers, hidden in a foreign country, cut off from the outside world, using only a contact chain for any kind of communication. However the US found him, and killed him. Reason was they cared enough to go to the great lengths necessary to track him down.

Now in the case of a group of people in a "hacking duel" with them they wouldn't care nearly as much. However it wouldn't be nearly as hard. The /b/tards are not nearly as smart as they like to think they are and when you get down to it, your ISP can monitor everything you do, if they want, and will do so upon a wire tap warrant from the government.

All that aside, please remember the US owns the very best of the best in signals intelligence: the NSA.

Re:And there's no such thing as being truly anonym (0)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429594)

Thanks, Stazi Vichy scum(I'm guessing "Unknown Lamer" is a JIDF transplant with a provably pro-Israel slant like Timothy) American intelligence is nowhere near what they wish they were, and you are a spineless fuck.

The FBI are morons.

Re:And there's no such thing as being truly anonym (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429600)

A competent person can make themselves anonymous on the web. If you're going to do something truly criminal/evil go buy a USB wireless card (with cash) do your nasty hacking at either a free wi-fi spot or piggy back off of some fool's open network. Dispose of USB wireless card and you disappear.

Re:And there's no such thing as being truly anonym (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38430008)

However if there was a reason, it could be done.

It could be done. It's possible.

But it's also possible to make it near impossible for them to find you. Even if they wanted to. If you're competent (which much of 'anonymous' isn't), that is.

The only reason they bust anyone is because these people are imbeciles.

Actions speak louder than words (5, Insightful)

mirix (1649853) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429026)

And three letter agencies, hell, police in general, seem to want to ignore civil rights whenever it is convenient. They're the annoying things you need to work around, not uphold.

Re:Actions speak louder than words (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429078)

Aww, nice little sound bite. Did your first year sociology professor come up with that one?

Grow up. Those three letter agencies you despise have done more to uphold your freedoms to whine than you can imagine. Sniping that the "police in general...want to ignore civil rights whenever it is convenient" is just silliness at best and a slap in the face at worst to men and women who literally put their life at risk to protect - go on, guess - you.

You're a pathetic little whiny brat.

Re:Actions speak louder than words (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429166)

"Those three letter agencies you despise have done more to uphold your freedoms to whine than you can imagine. "

[Citation Needed]

Re:Actions speak louder than words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429368)

^ this. Speaking of sound bites. Sounds like an anonymous troll whiner can't tell the difference between truly upholding freedom's and protecting the current political/economic power structure.

Re:Actions speak louder than words (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429296)

Upholding freedoms is generally not the purpose of a three letter agency. They would generally fit more under a security heading, and that security often comes at the expense of liberty.

Re:Actions speak louder than words (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429828)

from what I understand, the FBI were formed as investigative agents of the US Treasury - charged with investigating tax fraud and later chasing down bootleggers. These days they have such a wide remit they might as well be called the Federal Constabulary.

Re:Actions speak louder than words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429732)

There are two kinds of pigs in this world (i wont get into ratios cause you can't prove it) those that do ignore civil rights and those that stand by and let it happen. Frankly the police that do beat people up hand out trumped up charges and generally abuse their authority are worse than the people they run around claiming are evil criminals because of there $20 of grass.

Re:Actions speak louder than words (3, Insightful)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429790)

police are under NO OBLIGATION to protect YOU or your PROPERTY. The first modern police forces in the world were direct descendants of the Bow Street Runners, who were mercenaries for hire: someone doublecross you in a deal on a boat? Pay a Pound or two to send the BSR to track him down, put him in a stock for a few days, then break his kneecaps. Someone slit the throat of one of your slaves (a crime against property, not person)? Send the BSR to catch him and hang him off Tower Bridge.

Only difference between then and now is that the BSR wear uniforms and stab vests these days and the Corporation of the City of London, AKA the Crown, make the (commercial) Law that is the ONLY Oath obligation modern police have.

If you're looking to find someone to uphold Common Law (ie to investigate and prosecute robbery, rape and murder), you don't want a Police Officer, you want a CONSTABLE or a SHERIFF or a SHERIFF'S DEPUTY.

Re:Actions speak louder than words (5, Insightful)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429192)

Yup. Shortly before Thanksgiving the DA of New York was speaking at a press conference about those alleged terrorists they caught, and while I can't remember his exact works, it was something along the lines of stating that his job was to stop the bad guys with a minimal sacrifice of civil liberties. In other words, as soon as he believes protecting civil rights is getting in his way, he's going to stop protecting them.

The good old days. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429564)

"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation [wikipedia.org]

Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.

Re:Actions speak louder than words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429596)

If you live in the largest terror target wet dream, you don't have civil liberties.

My advice is to move away from where all the po-po's are.

From TFA (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429030)

"in a dedicated denial of service (DDoS) attack" didn't read further.

Civil Liberties (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429036)

So let me get this straight. He's fine with protesting in person-- you know, in designated protest areas, with a permit, a mile away from where anyone would notice or care, in which you may be legally beaten, pepper-sprayed, or arrested by police-- but he considers hacktivism "impinging on others' rights".

I would say that either 1) he doesn't understand that the purpose of hacktivism is to be high-profile, or 2) he's a lying assbag talking about rights when the purpose of his job to silence agitation.

Re:Civil Liberties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429292)

So let me get this straight: burning an effagy in a public square to make a point is the same as burning down 1,000,000 people's houses to make the same point?

So releasing 1,000,000 people's private credit information by hacktivists to make a high profile point is somehow okay?
Hacking into facebook and making Mark Zuckerberg's porn stash is probably on the par of making a similar point w/o being a hacktivist.

Your rights end when it interfers with my rights as a non-public figure and that is why it is illegal.

Re:Civil Liberties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429986)

when you say a 1,000,000 peoples homes are you refering to kissingers fire bombing campaign of loas and cambodia?

*yawn* (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429040)

wake me up when the federal government stops using existing and new legislation to violate the rights of US citizens, including those who may have different religious or political views.

who watches the watchers?

who speaks when others can't speak for themselves?

who exposes that which is hidden by the government that has sworn to protect it's citizens?

who exposes that which is hidden by corporations actively paying politicians to pass legislation for the benefit of those corporations?

do your f-ing job you douche bag.

Re:*yawn* (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429104)

If I had the mod points; I'd say +1 insightful. On the other hand; the FBI I'd mod as -666 for being a black hole of stupidity.

Hacktivists == Vigilantes (2)

Lose (1901896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429106)

Vigilantes have no regard for the law. The law is not their concern. Their concern is getting retribution for offenses delivered or pending delivery by an entity they do not agree with or feel wronged by.

Pinning hacktivism as a form of illegal activity will only deter kids who jumped onto the bandwagon for fun or to revolt.

I hope for his sake the SOPA bill doesn't pass, or its going to push many of these hacktivists further away. Any legitimate protection of rights online they hoped for will be lost.

Re:Hacktivists == Vigilantes (3, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429254)

Vigilantes have no regard for the law. The law is not their concern.

And yet you do not question why this is, and go on to call them "kids who jumped onto the bandwagon for fun or to revolt." Ever think maybe this is a legitimate response to a government that does not respect the rights of anyone but the filthy rich?

If the laws were not made to protect me and people like me, I have no respect for them. It is as simple as that.

You're right that if SOPA is passed, it will lead to more of this. It will because that would prove we have passed the point where talking and voting works, and now we must move on to other means before the country becomes worse. Further, it will be the unquestionable duty of every single American, or even people from other countries affected, to disrespect laws like SOPA.

Re:Hacktivists == Vigilantes (1)

Lose (1901896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429420)

You've only interpreted part of my response, and fitted in your own. Of course I understand there is a legitimate need for hacktivists on the Internet, and that many of them follow a justified cause, but I didn't feel it was necessary to reiterate this reality in my statement. I felt it was implied by now.

I for one wouldn't expect anyone to sit idly by while my basic human rights are stripped away by a corrupted democratic republic. On the flip side of things, however, I must question the ethics of my actions and others. Causing disruption to the commerce of an evil corporation by taking down their online shop for days on end, causing all kinds of financial loss to prove a point is one thing. Discovering an exploit for said service, raping their databases of all their customer's personal information and then scattering it across the web, on the other hand, is different. These hactivists have violated the implied, basic human rights of other persons, just to teach a lesson to a company. A twisted, Pyrrhic victory, if anything.

Its a grey area I just don't bother getting into, because I know the implications and the decisions that could be made. It just depends on how desperate the situation is that determines the justification for such actions at different levels.

Re:Hacktivists == Vigilantes (1)

jafiwam (310805) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429874)

Uhm. No.

In my experience, as an intermediate level guy that has occasionally run post-mortems to find out who got into what, most of the time the hackers are after the usual shit. Places to store pirated software, bragging rights, and plain old crime.

Sure, they do brag when they tear up servers. But what they go after, and who connects to what first, it's always some crime ring in Eastern Europe.

"Vigilante" is what they are when they don't find anything useful. Otherwise it's credit card numbers and theft from bank accounts, identity theft and other types of fraud, or even simple stuff like porn stashes.

Those drooling retards hanging out in parks thinking they are going to get something done are just the smokescreen du jour for the guys committing crimes.

Old joke from former communist countries (4, Insightful)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429122)

The director of KGB gives an interview and answers a question about freedom of speech: "Our country has complete freedom of speech. But freedom after speech, that's a whole different matter."

Re:Old joke from former communist countries (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429262)

A guy calls in to radio Yerevan.

caller: Is it true freedom of speech is the same in the US and USSR?

radio: In theory yes,
In USA you can yell "Down with Reagan!!" in front of the white house, and you will not be punished.
In USSR, you can yell "Down with Reagan!!" in front of Kremlin and also not be punished.

Step Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429126)

Shawn Henry, do you want to stop hacktivism?

Then step up.

When you see the Church of Scientology interfering with someone's right to freedom of the press on the Internet, then announce that you are starting an investigation into the Church of Scientology.

Or... Hacktivists are doing your job, because they don't see you doing it.

How You Can Hacktivistically Defeat SOPA (4, Informative)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429180)

Introduce your friends and family to The Onion Router [torproject.org] .

Set up a Tor node yourself. Amazon will provide an entry level EC3 host to anyone free of charge for a year.

Register a domain that is not under US control and so cannot be taken from you by the Feds. .is looks good - Iceland.

Mirror some Samizdat at PRQ AB of Sweden. They have a full time legal staff to defend their customers against takedown orders. you can host anonymously and pay them with anonymous money orders.

Re:How You Can Hacktivistically Defeat SOPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429460)

That's a trap.

First Amendment? Wrong Document (4, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429184)

Mr. Henry mentions the First Amendment, but says nothing about the Declaration of Independence. The First Amendment specifies that free speech is not subject to the discretion of the government, and he swore an oath to defend that boundary of Federal authority. Saying he supports that is like saying he does not support interstate trafficking in illegal goods. That's just doing what he swore he would do -- he doesn't get a pat on the back for that beyond what we inherently owe him for his civil service. The First is not what is in question regarding hacktivism.

The Declaration is the closest thing we have to an official US document that covers what a hacktivist would claim gives him a legitimate mandate to act. Civil disobedience may often include elements of free speech, but it is the illegality of the action that define it as civil disobedience -- it is right in the name.

It is an easy topic to address from the official position of the FBI: "The role of the FBI is to enforce law, and the kind of civil disobedience embodied in the Declaration of Independence is unlawful activity. The Declaration does not make civil disobedience legal, and my job is to enforce the law."

The fact that he did not address it head-on implies one of two things to me: He may not have a deep understanding of the founding of this nation, and the reasons that it had to be founded as it was. Alternately, he may understand the disobedient nature of our founding, but be choosing not broaching the topic.

If a person in his position is not aware of the anarchic nature of this nation's founding, and the reason that disobedience resonates even with lawful patriots, he should be removed from office. He has to at least understand that mentality in order to fight it, if nothing else.

If he is just not broaching the topic, I guess I understand his pragmatic decision, but I find it sleazy. He is being disingenuous and trivializing the extraordinarily delicate balance of true democracy.

It is intrinsic in the nature of Western Democracy that civil disobedience both violates the law and is necessary to refresh the tree of liberty. It is also clearly the charter of the FBI to enforce the law including by arresting people who engage in civil disobedience. Even if he thought it was wrong to arrest such people he would still be obligated to do so -- he is in the executive, not the judicial. The fact that those things are true and also in tension is part of what makes the FBI's job such a difficult task for the men and women who serve. Ignoring that fact does us all a disservice.

Re:First Amendment? Wrong Document (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429334)

He also didn't mention the Gettysburg address, the Federalist Papers, the articles of confederation, the speeches of MLK or the teachings of Ghandi.... All documents that have nothing to do with the purpose of the FBI, and aren't laws.

This is comparing apples to potatoes. Shutting down a business's website because you don't agree with their policies isn't OK when there are OTHER means to protest or express your displeasure. Just like it isn't ok to firebomb an abortion clinic (empty at night for the sake of comparison) because you are pro-life, that's not free speech or civil disobedience.

Re:First Amendment? Wrong Document (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429414)

Metaphors with the internet often fail, A more appropriate metaphor would be crowding around the entrance to a building to an extent that people can't get in. That's more of a gray area, and the primary reason against such behavior is typically the public safety issue (fire code and such), something that doesn't occur with the internet.

And you say it's not civil disobedience, but not all righteous disobedience is or should be 'civil.'

Re:First Amendment? Wrong Document (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429494)

Yes, and hacking law enforcement and publishing the phone numbers and home addresses of all the officers to allow others to terrorize them?

How about breaking into said clinic and publishing the names of all the people who work there, and the patients so we can go call them up and harass them.

While your metaphor may work for a DDOS, (maybe....), but breaking in and wreaking havoc on their internal servers - that's not like blocking the door...

The Declaration was anything but Civil (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429474)

Some German friends asked me what Americans celebrated on The Fourthnof July. "Thats when we started shooting at the British," I replied. I was joking - we started shooting a couple years earlier - but that is what I said.

All of Our Founding Fathers who signed The Declaration of Independence had sufficiently many testicles to do so with their real names. They all knew that if they were caught by the British, they would not just be spending some time in the slammer, theybwould be swinging from a noose for treason.

Re:The Declaration was anything but Civil (2)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429658)

All of Our Founding Fathers who signed The Declaration of Independence had sufficiently many testicles to do so with their real names.

One example does not a case make. Perhaps you have not heard of Publius. Anonymous speech and anonymous civil disobedience has a long history in democracy. Learn more.

Actually SCOTUS supports anonymous political speec (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429708)

-h.

Someone was charged with distributing political pamphlets without complying bwith campaign finance laws by declaring who paid for it. The court found that they had the right to anonymity. Sooty I don't have the citation.

Anonymous pamphleteering has a long tradition. nowadays we have Anonymous and LulzSec, but the USSR had typewritten Samizdat, and the British faced hand-operated printing presses operated in thevdark of the night.

Re:First Amendment? Wrong Document (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429496)

Civil disobedience != sabotage. Nor does it = vigilantism. Nor does it = damaging the stuff of people you don't like.

Re:First Amendment? Wrong Document (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429518)

The whole point of civil disobedience is that you are WILLING to take the punishment of breaking the law, because you are so opposed to the law that you are willing to take the punishment as a demonstration.

If you want to disobey the law without getting punished, that's not civil disobedience anymore, it's breaking a law no one cares to enforce, and is as consequential as jay-walking. Also, the declaration of independence isn't law. From the perspective of the court, it doesn't matter much at all.

Re:First Amendment? Wrong Document (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429646)

If you want to disobey the law without getting punished, that's not civil disobedience

I think you may have hit "reply" on the wrong comment. My comment specifically points out that I think it is the just and proper duty of the FBI to arrest these people. Cheers.

But the nose is undefined... (4, Informative)

hedgemage (934558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429198)

Sure, saying my rights end at the end of my nose etc. makes for a good soundbite but the problem is that especially with digital media you have large monied interests who get to define their own nasal boundaries. SOPA is a good example where the mere implication that someone is TOUCHING MY CORPORATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY'S NOSE can have far reaching penalties without any actual proof that there was harm done.

Fair and Reasonable (5, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429224)

That sounds all fair and reasonable. But then I find myself asking this: If picketing and protesting are "cool" with you then why are we not permitted this exercise of civil liberties/rights? Oh, that's right, because embarrassing and generally offending the establishment is considered blooding their nose...

Re:Fair and Reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429428)

The CYBERCRIME director is probably not out busting up occupiers...

Lies... (2)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429280)

... the problem with these organizations is that it depends on the quality of human beings of said institutions and said society. If human beings are stupid and corrupt then they will corrupt the institutions (media, school, business, government) and especially the lawmakers. If that wasn't bad enough the law makers are too old/ignorant/stupid to even process the social complexity of modern societies. His platitudes mean little.

If anything these guys are simply blindly following dogma and not being able to think critically about how money allows you to game the system and transform what was once a free society into a society in which the people have rights in name only. The whole idea that the loss of rights would be 'obvious' to these organizations is nonsense. People are stupid, especially people in power. Most of humanity is too unsophisticated to understand the complexity inherent in how money transforms institutions and their effects on society and culture.

Re:Lies... (1)

bob')DROP TABLE user (2535244) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429602)

If human beings are stupid and corrupt then they will corrupt the institutions (media, school, business, government, activist groups)

FTFY

Lawful neutral (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429310)

This guy sounds lawful neutral. The law allows you to be "free", but only to the point that the law tells you to stop. If we lived in soviet russia, his attitude may still be lawful neutral, and we'd get off way worse.

Re:Lawful neutral (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429488)

I really hate dnd alignments. (And by proxy, analogies made with them.)

The whole "lawful" branch of the alignment system tries to make the false implication that just because somthing is legal, it is unjust to question or defy its practice. A good example is slavery. Many nations openly legalized it for centuries. A "lawful neutral" would not care about the slavery bit, only the legality bit.

It would also cast famous historical figures in disfavorable light, such as gandhi. Chaotic good. (Blatant disregard for established law and proceedure.) As a chaotic aligned char, good luck getting him to play nice with "lawful" aligned types, which are your usual goodie goodies in the dnd universes.

Sorry to derail like that, but I find the whole alignment system faulted and dumb. It discounts people from different legal systems getting along great, despite one being chaotic and the other lawful, because the chaotic one is rebelling against foriegn laws the lawful one doesn't ascribe to. (Think "underground railroad" abolishonists talking with northerners without institutionalised slavery. Dnd makes too much of the "oooh, you broke the law.... I'm telling!" Aspect. It fixates, and enforces conflicts between characters that would never actually happen.

Ok, rant over. Back to deepening this fbi tool's humilation.

Re:Lawful neutral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429864)

Shit like that happens only when playing with morons.

Re:Lawful neutral (1)

danlip (737336) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429946)

The problem seems to be you are equating lawful and good, which is exactly the opposite of what the system implies. They are on separate axes for a reason. For example you say "it would cast famous historical figures in disfavorable light, such as gandhi". Why would calling someone chaotic cast them in an unfavorable light? Do you have some judgement on chaotic? That is your judgement, I don't think it comes from the 2-axis system. And I don't think it really implies the problem that you imply on the conflict between different legal systems, again that is just your interpretation. Obviously the D+D universe is a narrow one, but it naturally expands to be a great system for thinking about the world and people, especially when cultures and laws differ so much it gives a good framework for differentiating between people who care about the rules and people who care about good. I'm not really thinking of D+D when I think of the 2-axis system, and I don't think most people are - it's much bigger than its origin.

And your example about slavery is spot on, I'm not sure how you came to such a poor conclusion using it. Slavery existed for centuries precisely because most people are lawful neutral and a few powerful people are very skillful at being lawful evil. If you can't separate "lawful" from "good" in your mind you loose this major lesson from history. It applies to things like the "war on drugs" too, which is lawful evil.

(that being said I just read that D+D has gone back to a 1-axis system, with 5 positions, eliminating chaotic good and lawful evil, to which I say WTF. But I don't really care about D+D, the system stands on its own)

All my heroes are chaotic good.

Hacktivism is Civil Disobedience (4, Insightful)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429412)

That Shawn guy is all huffy because Anonymous and LulzSec break the law, as if legitimate political protest is on the same level as robbery or mindless vandalism.

During the Civil Rights Movement some white clergymen published an open letter thatvwhile ostensibly supporting equal rights for blacks, urged them to comply with The Whie Mans law during their protests, for example by not shutting down entire cities for days on end.

While spending some time in the slammer, The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior wrote "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" on a few scraps of paper that he begged from the jailer, in which he said "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html [upenn.edu]

I regard that letter as King's most important written work.

My colleagues at Kuro5hin fault me for not being a Team Player because I regard raising Hell as the greatest contribution I can make to society. We would all be better off if there were fewer Team Players not more of them. Consider what happened when the "Guter Deutschers" - that was the German word for Team Player back in the day - failed to heed the dictates of their consciences and so encouraged Hitler's rise to power.

If you are not up to Hacktivism, don't just politely hand out some leaflets when you protest in meatspace. No, get yourself hauled off to jail by shutting down the entire business district of a city.

Re:Hacktivism is Civil Disobedience (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429558)

The only addendum I havee to this, is to practice the disobendience properly.

When you practice disobedience, you should expect to be caught. If you aren't caught, consider it a happy accident.

Don't ride high on the disobediencec, then grovel like a worm once caught. Own up to your disobediences, and be proud of them. Openly proclaim them, and why you did them.

That is the correct way to be disobedient.

You will note I post under my real name (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429648)

My personal objective is in part to do away with the greed, corruption and incompetence that permeates the software industry. I have never made a secret of that fact, because the software industry sickens me so.

Yet the not men but mice who inhabit Kuro5hin fault me for not devoting more of my time to shipping software products. I really don't see how that would be a productive use of my limited time on The Mortal Plane. We have lots of software products, but few who are willing to take a stand against corruption.

Re:You will note I post under my real name (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429706)

The only way this will happen in any meaningful way, is through personal responsibility for the software created, both in terms of direct consequences, and also of indirect ones.

Personal responsibility is exactly what corporations are created to avoid.

As such, only the systematic obliteration of software produced by corporations will have the desired effect.

The alternative, is to force the creators and marketers of abusive software products to bear unrelenting heat for their activities, and come clean. This is where the disobedience comes in.

Again, if you chose to be disobedient, then chose to be properly recalcitrant and obstinate in that disobedience. Be totally unreformable, unyeilding. Don't be a Friday night vigilante.

That's all I was trying to say.

Thank You. I Understood Your Point (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38430036)

Consider the End User License Agreements that disclaims liability for causing real damage, as when a completely reproducible bug in Excel led my boss to overdraw the company checking account by four grand.

I recently turned down a lucrative remote consulting gig because the client was in Arizona, which recently passed an appallingly racist law that is clearly intended to keep Hispanic people down. I didn't just decline the gig, my email about it went on at some length about how wrong I feel that law is.

Human Machine Interface / Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition is some of the most human life critical software there is. I resigned from that job not because their code isn't exception safe but because the company president specifically forbid me from teaching my colleagues how to do exception safe resource management. I am completely convinced that that company's industrial control system code will someday make Stuxnet look like a walk in the park.

I resigned in protest from the highest paying job I ever had because I was convinced their failure to adequately test our hardware RAID put end user data and possibly even human lives at risk.

the first time I resigned in protest it was over the CEOs decision to move our office out of scenic Scotts Valley California so she personally would have a shorter commute. While she was hired to take Live Picture public, instead she drove the company into bankruptcy.

I regard my real life's work not any kind of software I overwrite, but the essays and articles I write. I have always been clear about that. but even so, my colleagues at Kuro5hin give me no end of crap for not having gotten my first iOS App intonthebapp Store yet.

Seems you missed Dr. King's point (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429616)

Note that he's advocating disobeying unjust laws like, say, laws requiring segregation, laws treating people with a little more melanin in their skin as inferior.

So what are the laws "hacktivists" break? Laws like "You aren't allowed to DDoS someone's website," or "You aren't allowed to access someone's computer without their permission." Hmmm, those laws sound pretty just to me. I think when there's a victim, it is quite just to have a law against victimizing that person.

So if you believe that copyright law is unjust, and you distribute copyrighted works for that reason then ok I can understand that. However if you believe that the government doesn't respect your rights so you go and DDoS Amazon, I can't respect that. The first is like you refusing to obey a law banning breast feeding, because you believe it is unjust, by breastfeeding a baby in public. The second is like you burning down my house because you believe the city council isn't respecting your rights.

Something else to remember, something important: Those people involved in great acts of civil disobedience did so knowing the consequences, and putting their names on it all the same. They stood up publicly, and accepted the consequences they faced. Again look at Dr. King's letter you linked, that he wrote from jail, again with his name on it. He didn't try and circulate a manifesto anonymously, he was a public face for a movement and accepted the consequences for it. Or take the start of it all int he US, the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers signed their names on it, knowing they were signing a death warrant for them if they lost the fight. They didn't write it anonymously and pin it to a tree then play dumb, they said "Yes this is us, we stand behind this with our lives if necessary."

This bullshit of random hacking and DDoSing of sites is not civil disobedience and is not the sort of thing people like Dr. King would respect.

Re:Seems you missed Dr. King's point (0)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429652)

A DDoS is not an actual server intrusion. If is more what happens when you call 5000 friends to go loiter at the mall. You overload the server (stores) with traffic (people) beyond capacity. This results in people coming there to spend money being unable to.

You do this because the place you are DDoSing is engaged in not aboveboard antics.

This is exactly what happened with the "denail of service" attacks that king and other civil rights protesters engaged in with the rapid transit system, bathrooms, etc.

Malls, metropolitan transit hubs, and all kinds of places have anti loitering laws. This is the actual analog to the privacy and security laws you attempted to conflate.

Now, if you are hacking into the server, putting shopped pics of the ceo getting it up the ass by a jackhammer and making the "oh" face, that is totally different. That is vandalism. Not civil disobedience.

The Civil Rights Movement Violated Other Laws (2)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429772)

They wrent just violating segregation laws by refusing to sit in the back of the bus. They violated all manner of laws by braising all kinds if Hell. The "Civil" in Civil Disobedience doesn't mean one is polite, just that one is nonviolent.

An example of the way the Civil Rights Movement would violate the law, which those white ministers I mentioned claimed was wrong, was that the protestors would shut down entire cities by blocking the streets.

That negatively impacted corporate profits, pretty much what Anonymous has been doing.

In principle I agree with younthat one should commit such crimes under ones own real name. That lends legitimacy to ones argument. but consider the good sense that the French Underground and Eastern European Partisans had in hiding their identities from the Nazis. By not getting shot - or prosecuted in the case of Anonymous - they can survive to fight another day.

Hey FBI, investigate our own gov and wallstreet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38429530)

The fucking FBI doesnt have the balls to investigate the faggots we have in office right now who are in bed with the billionaires on wallstreet that are destroying our nation...

But the kid in his bedroom, raised with the bullshit we call "American ideals" is the criminal?

FBI.. go fuck yourself.

They do, sometimes (4, Insightful)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429668)

The FBI isn't all bad. they really do investigate corrupt politicians, such as the Portland, Oregon city official who now stands accused ofvtaking bribes from a parking meter company.

The problem we have is that it is not illegal to change your vote in response to a campaign "donation". I would like to see a Constitutional amendment that forbid any but individual live humans from contributing nonpolitical campaigns.

Menacing? (0)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429614)

Today, it's more menacing. Consider the outcomes of just three data breaches launched in the name of hacktivism:

OK, let's consider these outcomes and see if we come up with something that would suitably be called "menacing", with the full emotional meaning of that word.

LulzSec's hack into Sony's PlayStation network in April 2011 is reportedly expected to cost Sony $171 million by the end of the entertainment company's 2012 fiscal year.

Giant corporation that makes a lot more than $171 million per year, due to the economic system that We The People have agreed to use, loses some of that money one year because some of We The People break the law. Giant corporation that gets a helluva lot more taxpayer money spent on protecting its goods every year than the typical American citizen gets in a lifetime (with good reason, but they are the beneficiaries of the good side of We The People). Giant corporation that is the beneficiary of the good nature of We The People loses some of its money one year due to the bad nature of We The People. Not good, and the perpetrators should be charged, but hard for me to see that as "menacing." When I think "menacing", I think hooded figure in a darkened alley with blood spatter on his ratty sneakers, not "Company that is doing very well because of the good of society sometimes loses a little bit to the darker nature of society."

When Former HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr threatened to expose top members of Anonymous, the hacktivist group retaliated by breaking into the security company's systems and exposing controversial and confidential emails. Barr subsequently received death threats and was forced to step down from his job.

Ummm, the death threats are bad, but the reason he had to step down was not because the emails were exposed -- it was because he was directing his company to do some seriously evil and un-American shit. The death threats are probably in the "menacing" category, but given they came to nothing, they are a damned sight less menacing than it was to have a person as malevolent as Aaron Barr in a position with so much power over so many American citizens. Failure to see his exposure and removal as a grand slam win for the citizens of the United States betrays a deeply disturbed sense of justice.

After Anonymous broke into the member database for Bill O'Reilly's website, a woman who's name, email address, physical address and password were exposed during the breach suffered $400 in fraudulent credit card charges and huge amounts of embarrassment after hackers posted pornographic pictures to her Facebook page and sent pornographic emails via her AOL account, according to Ars Technica.

$400 and some porn? Yawn. Bad, but not "menacing" like the part in the old silent movies and radio theater where the organ player would play the big creepy chord (called a "sting", I think).

I understand the motive for CIO to write a piece like this blowing sunshine up the Mr. Henry's skirt and pandering to it's anti-social executive target market, but I'd like to see it at least be a little more artful. This article shows all the subtlety of pooping on the hood of your ex's car.

I simply say: (1)

kixome (1636329) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429644)

Fuck the law. Hacktivists are doing what they should to annoy the law breaking FBI and greedy corporations. If the fbi can't be held to the rules then no american can!

HELP!! a slashdoter whose familiy is facing cancer (-1, Offtopic)

big-giant-head (148077) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429696)

URGENT!!! Please help a family facing cancer!!! My FIL has stage 3 colon cancer and is currently undergoing chemo. My wife, who is a stay at home Mom has entered a craft into a contest. She’s currently in second place to a professional craft blogger with a huge fan base. If she wins, she will turn the prize into cash for her father who lives on a very low budget. The hospital is 75 miles each way which is a lot of gas money. As you know, there are expenses associated with chemo. Her father will need medicine and supplies. PLEASE, vote for my wife’s craft by leaving a comment. That’s all we are requesting. You can vote/comment as often as you like. Just keep it, clean. (It’s a family website) We would appreciate that so much and it would make my in-laws Christmas a happy one to know that others care. The contest ends December 31st. Thanks in advance for your help!
http://moneysavingqueen.com/December-2011/Frugal-Christmas-Gifts-Day-9-Christmas-Bath-Bombs/ [moneysavingqueen.com]

Something really wrong has been going on... (5, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429734)

Director Henry, could I please get your take on "Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act". President Obama has already signed this piece of legislation and it declares the entire world including The United States of America as the battlefield. In short it give our government the authority to detain or assassinate American citizens, without due process, the right to an attorney, or even the dignity of informing our friends and families that y'all decided we should be shot.

Our government has just declared war on the American people, and how exactly would you expect that we deal with this? Tea and crumpets? A harsh dressing down of our political representatives... posh, you naughty boys have subjugates my civil rights and get off my lawn! Sir, our founding fathers fought and died to give us the rights we now cherish, and with the stroke of a pen, we've seen these rights obliterated by self serving sycophants.

You sir say you are a keeper of law, a protector of America's freedom, well then why have you not arrested the very people who have seen fit to rob every American of that which is most precious. We've seen this behavior before, in Germany in the 1930s. The rich and powerful building a mote around themselves to protect themselves from the havoc that followed. This is not the America of our Founding Fathers, and for myself, I protest, I protest to high heaven, and I demand that my government be returned immediately.

Whose nose, and why? (4, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429832)

But the freedom for me to swing my arm ends where your nose begins.

I've heard this many times, but I'm wondering if and where you find anything like this notion in the US Constitution. Or is it part of the writings of Madison or Jefferson? Or maybe it's something Thomas Paine wrote, or some other Enlightenment thinker?

Or is it just another one of the many insufficiencies of the US Constitution that needed to be added by a wise and powerful Supreme Court? Sort of like "money is speech" and "corporations are people" and "war is peace".

I'm not saying I disagree with the notion of freedom and arms and noses and all that, but I really wonder how that gets morphed into "You have freedom of speech as long as it does not inconvenience anyone".

I think about the original Boston Tea Party and the mess those guys must have made in Boston Harbor, dumping all those crates and barrels and tea into the harbor. Plus, I'm sure that there were quite a few hard working colonial farmers and tradesmen and merchants who just wanted to sit down with a nice cup of tea with their dinner who were really put out by the fact that all that Ceylon and Oolong and Earl Grey got dumped into the drink. And what about the colonial merchants who just got by making a meager living selling tea to those folks? I wonder how much income they lost because of the Boston Tea Party and how many of them had their businesses shuttered because they couldn't float their expenses until the next shipment of tea came? Or the longshoremen who loaded the tea onto wagons and shipped it inland? Do you think they were inconvenienced? Did they lose income too, you think?

I think about that original Boston Tea Party in light of all the comparisons that get made between the misnamed "modern" Tea Party Patriots and the Occupy Wall Street movement. A lot is made about how well-behaved and "clean" and obedient the Tea Party Patriots are compared to the "filthy" and "violent" and obstructive OWS protestors, who caused the poor sandwich shop near Wall Street to lose income while they held their protest. The horror! LOST REVENUE!

I wonder how "clean" and "obedient" and "well-behaved" the original Tea Party dudes were when they dressed up like Indians and started dumping other people's property into Boston Harbor. I wonder if they cared that they were inconveniencing all the tea drinkers and/or tea sellers (which meant just about everyone at the time).

No, I just took a quick look at the Constitution again and I don't see any "right not to be inconvenienced by someone else's free speech". I see an "inalienable" right to free speech, but not the former. No "inalienable" right not to have protestors cause you to have a bad day. This is important, because it speaks directly to the notion of the innovative "free speech zones" that have been going up since the 2000 Republican Convention. And the idea that you can be arrested for singing near the Lincoln Memorial, or that free speech in Zucotti Park ends at 11pm (for safety purposes).

I'll have to think about this a little bit...

This is probably redundant, but anyway... (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38429860)

"My organization is a believer in civil rights and civil liberties, and the first amendment is something I hold very dear personally and professionally."

No he doesn't.

Nobody in government cares about rights. Just look at the votes for NDAA and the paucity of votes against, and the current SOPA bullshit.

Habeas Corpus - Eliminated
Due Process - Eliminated.

It's like the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights never happened. At least in England they still have the right to due process retained from the Magna Carta (there are only like 3 rights retained from the Magna Carta in England anyway, but the right to due process is a biggie).

As much as I thought Prison Planet and all that shit was bullshit, the past month has changed my mind.

I seriously think that Chilean style "Disappearances" are in the offing. But instead of a military junta doing it, it will be our "elected" government.

Remember, the dems and republicans are the same, so vote republican. *spit*

--
BMO

Is it just me.... (1)

RandomAvatar (2487198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38430016)

Is it just me, or is the U.S. starting to look very similar to China in the area of freedom (or lack thereof)?
Load More 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...