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!

UK Anonymous Hacktivists Get Jail Time

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the sadly-taking-up-room-for-spammers dept.

Crime 96

twoheadedboy writes "Two members of the Anonymous hacking collective have been handed a total of 25 months in prison. Christopher Weatherhead, a 22-year-old who went under the pseudonym Nerdo, received the most severe punishment — 18 months in prison. Another member, Ashley Rhodes, was handed seven months, whilst Peter Gibson was given a six-month suspended sentence. They were convicted for hitting a variety of websites, including those belonging to PayPal and MasterCard."

cancel ×

96 comments

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

First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42683933)

Firsties

Yeah Right (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year and a half ago | (#42683949)

FTFA, the attack on Paypal was said to have cost them 3.6 m pounds, I doubt that.

Re:Yeah Right (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684233)

It's fairly common for these kinds of nonsense figures to include: 1) the cost of doing stuff they would've needed to do anyway, like fix misconfigurations or patch security holes; and 2) salaries for regular staff who would've been paid the salary either way, like a sysadmin who had to take some time away from posting on Slashdot to respond to the incident.

Re:Yeah Right (2, Interesting)

GumphMaster (772693) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684549)

The logic of ambit claims will goes like this (figures are examples only): the most revenue (not profit) we have ever taken in an hour is 1.5M, we were off-the-air for 2 hours (rounded up of course), therefore we 'lost' 3M. For that 2 hours our company-wide expenditure was 0.5M which was not bringing in money and therefore a 'loss'. Total 3.5M 'lost'. It, of course, completely ignores the massive spike in payments during the few hours after their system came back as the vast majority of payments that could not be completed in the outage were completed later anyway (that spike may even have driven the peak revenue figure used above). It also ignores the average global revenue for PayPal (USD1.54 billion Q4 2012 https://www.paypal-media.com/about [paypal-media.com] ) of about GBP 450,000/hr, the fact the majority of expense would have been incurred anyway and is not additional etc. etc. Usually ambit claims are made with the intent to negotiate down to something sane, but negotiation in criminal matters is something only corporations get to do.

Re:Yeah Right (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684563)

D'oh! Meant to reply to GP.

Re:Yeah Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42688893)

Given the volume of transactions they process and the small percentage they skim off the top, I can well imagine it really did 'cost' them that much in lost transactions... However most of those people would still want to be able to buy whatever the thing was, so they probably still made the purchase just a few hours later when things were back to normal.

Yes they probably included some of what you mentioned, but many of those sysadmins fixing the issue were probably pulled in on call on an rate higher than their ordinary rate. That's probably going to be the biggest real cost to them.

Re:Yeah Right (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684235)

Your doubt is utterly irrelevant to anything else in the universe.

Re:Yeah Right (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684451)

Same as your message.

Re:Yeah Right (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42687759)

FTFA, the attack on Paypal was said to have cost them 3.6 m pounds, I doubt that.

I'm sure Paypal is very much interested in proving that in civil court. The pain is just beginning for those idiot boys.

Re:Yeah Right (1)

ConfusedVorlon (657247) | about a year and a half ago | (#42688929)

nope - this is England.

We're done now. The boys will serve their time (presumably 9 months with good behaviour) and then move on with their lives.

note: it's not that in theory Paypal couldn't take a civil claim, just that in the UK it isn't generally the done thing. Apart from anything else, it wouldn't be worth it for Paypal. The boys almost certainly have little in the way of assets, so Paypal wouldn't recover much (and it would cost them a bundle in legal fees). On top of that, they would just end up looking like a bullying corporation picking on some idiot boys who had paid for their crime by going to prison.

Not suprised (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42683953)

Just goes to show if you dare have the nerve to screw with "Corporations" that control all world governments then you end up in prison for doing something that wasnt even harmful to begin with.

Re:Not suprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684085)

I believe you're half right. Yes, you do get more time when you mess with a corporation as opposed to hacking someone's pc. But then, when you hack one persons pc you take down one person. When you hack master card and visa you affect a lot more people. I think it might be a good thing to discourge that sort of behavior.

Another reason to use cash (0)

Dainsanefh (2009638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684281)

I don't get affected by any of these.

Good (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42683957)

Stupid Script kiddies

I've seen this movie! (3, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | about a year and a half ago | (#42683963)

Peter Gibson was given a six-month suspended sentence.

He has lived a trite and meaningless life. Oh, wait. No. That's Gibbons, not Gibson.

Re:I've seen this movie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684111)

So did Peter Gibson get Federal-Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison?

Re:I've seen this movie! (4, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684149)

Only if he violates probation and has to serve his sentence. BTW, over there they call it National-Pound-Me-In-Me-Bum-Jail.

Re:I've seen this movie! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684317)

No, we don't.

You can keep prison-rape as a predominantly US phenomenon.

I do have a question on the subject...

Rape is terrible, we all know it's a horrible crime. Why when someone convicted of a crime, especially non-violent, is it suddenly a hilarious prospect?

Re:I've seen this movie! (5, Insightful)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684575)

Because it serves to keeping the American population docile about our terrible justice system. If you think about the (far too many) inmates in prison as people who may be serving time unjustly or at least disproportionately to their crimes, you might get upset and expect change. If you think of them as animals who are getting raped as a form of penance to society, then you can blissfully go back to living in ignorance.

Re:I've seen this movie! (3, Insightful)

Sabriel (134364) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684761)

Dark humour can act as a coping mechanism. We can't, or don't want to, deal with the true awfulness of something, so we make fun of it.

Re:I've seen this movie! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42687597)

Rape is terrible, we all know it's a horrible crime. Why when someone convicted of a crime, especially non-violent, is it suddenly a hilarious prospect?

Victorian insensibility has led to Americans giggling like schoolgirls if someone says penis.

Now, I'm sure woman-on-woman rape happens in our pathetic prison system, but for the most part, we're pretty much talking about male-on-male rape.

Buttsex.

TEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE.

*sigh*

Re:I've seen this movie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42689647)

Another pressing question is the unfortunate implication of allowing prison rape as an extra disincentive for would-be criminals.

Let's ignore for the moment the fact that this monstrous belief is wrong. (such 'deterrents' actually do little or nothing to reduce crime rates.) Where is the disincentive for being a rapist? Surely if I were a notorious ass-rapist in the US, I wouldn't fear prison at all. Hell, I'd probably *try* to build up as brutal and rapey a reputation as I could before deliberately getting caught and convicted because it sounds like such a great gig: Apparently, once in prison I get unofficially deputised into the system to do what I love doing, as the wardens patriotically turn a blind eye to me systematically ass-raping every quivering teenaged pot-smoker, DWB and actually-I'm-innocent-but-I-couldn't-afford-a-defence-so-I-took-a-plea-bargain in the building.

Moral of the story? If you're going to be a criminal in the US, be a violent rapist: American justice needs more rapists! Yay rape! America #1!!!11!

Re:I've seen this movie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42689849)

It's called "slap-stick". Look it up. ...shit's funny.

Re:I've seen this movie! (3, Insightful)

rich_hudds (1360617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42690395)

Completely agree.

The USA is possibly the only country in the world where more men are raped than women.

The threat of rape helps force innocent people to take a plea bargain. Plea bargaining being another outrage that the USA blindly accepts but which most civilised countries severely limit.

Re:I've seen this movie! (1)

Inda (580031) | about a year and a half ago | (#42689469)

Arse. It translates to arse.

And like the AC says, that doesn't happen here.

Get your head down, stay out of everyone's way, do your time,... ...watch Sky Sports and play the PS3 or 360 [in low category gaols before anyone gets on their high horse]

Re:I've seen this movie! (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | about a year and a half ago | (#42689643)

Arse. It translates to arse.

And like the AC says, that doesn't happen here.

Get your head down, stay out of everyone's way, do your time,... ...watch Sky Sports and play the PS3 or 360 [in low category gaols before anyone gets on their high horse]

Die someone say horse? There's plenty of that behind bars: http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8174000/8174870.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Peter Gibson (1)

ninlilizi (2759613) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684681)

In Soviet Britain Gibson Hacks you!

Wow, pretty severe (2, Interesting)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#42683977)

I have zero sympathy for this kind of hacker, but that's a lot of time for a DDOS that apparently they didn't even execute if I read the charges right.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (1)

GovCheese (1062648) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684093)

Weatherhead received the most severe sentence due to his cybernym, Nerdo, indicating a special danger to himself, his fellows and to society.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#42689797)

Well, that explains why he was involved. I can't imagine Ashley getting teased much as a boy though.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684099)

The damages are punitive, not recompensatory. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is an archaic ruler to measure justice.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684213)

I would rather spend 8 months in prison (even with all the dark savages) rather than paying 4m pounds, thanks friendo

Re:Wow, pretty severe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684305)

You won't have to if you don't think that taking up a vigilante crusade to free the common man from the oppressions of the tyrannical corporations.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684363)

Free 3rd party online transactions are oppressive bro, at least insulting

Re:Wow, pretty severe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42685123)

You know you can always just not use Paypal, right?

Re:Wow, pretty severe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684353)

Valuing money you don't have, more than your freedom... Weird.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684415)

enough that I don't want taken away, view it conversely as a hotel expenditure, you pay to be in a certain place for some time in convenience, I would rather not go bankrupt to spend 8 months free in body

Re:Wow, pretty severe (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42685193)

Under US libertarian policy, money is freedom. Only through property ownership does one obtain rights. So if someone takes all your money, they take all your freedom. If someone takes $8,000,000 from you you don't have (and never will) then you are a slave for life. And in the US, court decisions can't be discharged in bankruptcy, so you will owe it the rest of your life, no matter what you do. But take prison, and 8 months later you are free for the rest of your life. One is a life sentence, the other is a few months.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684237)

I believe the primary difference in the Mastercard and PayPal DDOS attacks is that they weren't just tryng to take down a website, but rather they attacked the domains that provided APIs to process payments. They were literally trying to disrupt business transactions.

They were not successful in fully bringing down either.

I also object to calling any criminal hacking "hacktivism". A legal protest can be more effective. They didn't advance their beliefs or causes, though they did break the law.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684769)

It's possible they considered this to be civil disobedience. If so, the whole point is that you do what you believe is right, knowing it's illegal, and accept the consequences of your actions. If they believe they were doing the right thing then fair enough, but there should be no whining about the jail time.

For those outside the UK, they will serve 50% of their sentences if they behave while inside.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42685997)

That's only good time. 2 for 1. Some places it's 3 for 1. They will probably be eligible for parole in 4 to 6 months and can do that in county jail. Usually you only go to the pen if it is longer than a year sentence.

If it is federal they will go to a work camp that is low security. They aren't going to get raped. They probably will get beat up though. The federal work camps don't even have fences and you get a TV in your cell. You can walk into town when you aren't working.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year and a half ago | (#42686937)

That actually sounds kind of similar to the US system. The biggest difference is that both the guards and the prisoners are likely to be a lot more civilized in the U.K.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (0)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684899)

I also object to calling any criminal hacking "hacktivism". A legal protest can be more effective.

Can be, but not necessarily. If it weren't for criminals, we wouldn't be racially integrated today.

They didn't advance their beliefs or causes

They didn't, but they tried. And that's better than most people do.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (2)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684517)

I have zero sympathy for this kind of hacker, but that's a lot of time for a DDOS that apparently they didn't even execute

It is just a lesson that PayPal and others have purchased (lobbied) from our government.

These hackers should have gone into money laundering (e.g. HSBC - Too Big to Indict [nytimes.com] ) instead.

Re:Wow, pretty severe (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42686559)

I have zero sympathy for this kind of hacker, but that's a lot of time for a DDOS that apparently they didn't even execute if I read the charges right.

Attempt a felony, be charged with a felony.

Join in a criminal conspiracy, provide support for the conspiracy, go down with your co-conspirators.

It doesn't matter whether the conspiracy succeeds or fails. Traditionally, it didn't matter whether you expected things to be taken as far as they were or end as badly as they did. There are echoes of this in the felony murder rule.

You don't want to be caught driving the getaway car in a holdup where someone gets shot. You don't even want to be the guy who supplied the car used in the robbery,

''Perpetrators of distributed denial of service attacks laud them as civil protests but they can be incredibly damaging to the finances and reputations of online businesses.
Simultaneously, they impact on the general public's ability to use online services,'' said detective chief inspector Terry Wilson of the PCeU.
''These men provided the infrastructure for such attacks. The sentences they have received are indicative of how serious the crime is and the tough approach the courts will take to such criminals.''
In April last year, an anti-abortion activist with links to Anonymous was given 32 months in prison for hacking into the records and website of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS).

UK Anonymous Hackers Get Jail Time [techweekeurope.co.uk]

Weatherhead, who got 18 months, was the only one whose case went to trial.

Juries convict. The geek serves hard time. You are going to see this happen more often, not less.

Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42683983)

Stupid Script Kiddies

Never mess with the money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684061)

The only law that matters anymore.

So what is so great about Anonymous? (1, Offtopic)

Agares (1890982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684073)

I am being serious about this when I ask. What is so great about Anonymous? I have read plenty about them, but don't get why so many people I know go on about how great of hackers they supposedly are. Furthermore just so you know, the people I know who do this obviously know nothing about computers and they say they really want to join them. Also forgive me if I am missing something, but they just seem like a bunch of hacker wannabe script kiddies. I don't think any self respecting group of hackers would go around parading about how amazing they are and what they have done.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (2)

Korruptionen (2647747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684143)

My personal take is that this is a dual part answer. Anonymous is as awesome as it is terrible. The idea of anonymous is what I think I would champion most.

There are some good things done by the faceless group... and there are stupid childish things done by the faceless group.. neither the same part of the whole, but still apart of the group.

From this we see community, and from internet community, we see weirdos. Just depends on how deep you're wanting to look.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (1)

DriveDog (822962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684297)

In some ways it's like ALF or ELF—anyone anywhere can be Anonymous. This makes it impossible for LEOs to track down all participants before they act. It means there's little hierarchy of control, so actions of some may not be condoned by others under the banner. Doing something and claiming to be Anonymous gets significantly more attention than being just anonymous but gets participants more severe punishment because those prosecuted are implicitly being blamed for the previous actions of others under the banner.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42687505)

In most the the truth will out and the fact that 'Anonymous' doesn't really exist as a group, will out and the action you took in the name of 'Anonymous' will be purely those you are charged for and if proven convicted for.

In the US with the whole abortion that is the Department of in-Justice, any sort of weird crap interpretation will come to life and be thrown into the case. It'll only be a matter of time until the self aggrandising arse holes decide that each and every single individual request of a DDoS attack is a criminal event and they decide to threaten people with 5 years times 10 million attacks or some such other nonsense. Then there's the whole crap getting a couple of criminals to testify against you for reduced sentences and with absolutely no other real evidence charge you with conspiracy or legally attempting to financially destroy you prior to the court case so you can pay for a defence.

The only real lesson here is, if you are going to participate in network attacks as a protest don't bloody do it from home and certainly don't talk others into doing it from home.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684161)

Anonymous' targets are what seem to draw adulation, not their methods.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684179)

I am being serious about this when I ask. What is so great about Anonymous? I have read plenty about them, but don't get why so many people I know go on about how great of hackers they supposedly are. Furthermore just so you know, the people I know who do this obviously know nothing about computers and they say they really want to join them. Also forgive me if I am missing something, but they just seem like a bunch of hacker wannabe script kiddies. I don't think any self respecting group of hackers would go around parading about how amazing they are and what they have done.

Its about flipping a finger to the man! Seriously, the appeal of Anonymous isn't the skill set (which most true hardcore geeks would agree are unimpressive) its that they're using hacking to 'topple the worldwide oligarchy and provide transparency" or whatever dead anti-corporate 1990's slogan Occupy Wall Street activists are using these days. Its the same reason activists are so in love with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks - its not that they're such maverick hackers, its that they're using their skills to piss off bankers, large corporations and organizations like the Catholic Church and G-8 governments.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (1)

Agares (1890982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684207)

That is a pretty good point. Not sure why that didn't occur to me before.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (1)

Agares (1890982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684283)

I guess I should think before I critisize crude tactics when the intentions might be good ones.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (5, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684277)

This is unfortunately flawed thinking.

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend or a good guy. Just because someone like Assange doesn't like the US government, or banks or whoever else you hate, doesn't make him a saint. Just because Anonymous decided to support WikiLeaks didn't make them saints either.

They attacked PBS for crying out loud, just because PBS aired a documentary that tried to present both sides of the Assange debate.

That isn't supporting any ideal of transparency. That is acting childish.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42685267)

Both sides of the Assange debate?

What, the truth vs bullshit? Which is probably 1% truth and 99% bullshit?

I can't remember the last time I saw anything on TV that wasn't pretending to be impartial and balanced - and wasn't anything but.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (2)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42701097)

PBS Frontline Documentaries are some of the most respected in the world. Making silly assumptions without having any knowledge isn't supporting transparency either.

Trying to block someone from free speech (especially truthful speech) out of fear is the exact polar opposite of what Assange and Wikileaks supposedly stand for. But that is exactly what Anonymous was doing in going after PBS.

Terrorizing people into not speaking the truth is not something that should be celebrated or endorsed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/interviews/julian-assange.html [pbs.org]

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42685031)

Ok... the Anonymous that you know was a co-opt from Scientology protests in 2008

I was there the entire time, the Church of Scientology pulled an insane Tom Cruise video from Youtube on copyright grounds and there began a raid (one of the last of them) then the liberal idiots from Something Awful and even Reddit (God forgive me for uttering that word) got involved. That was the beginning of the Anonymous you know, they started their own websites and communication circles.

They share a lot in common (now) with Occupy protesters and in many ways they are the same people. From now on you should view them as that, this post is honest and serious and you should take it genuinely.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684231)

There is nothing great about "them". It is simple psychology that people want to belong and feel as if they are in charge and powerful.
Those that truly want to stand up against the wrongs in society should learn how to influence that society and change it.
Civil disobedience simply is viewed as a nuisance and may bring attention to a situation but is soon forgotten about and simply moves the target to the group causing the riot and away from the actual activists view point.

Immaturity however will always win this battle. They will get their high out of being troublemakers believing they have power over something.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684505)

Some jackass moderator marked this "Offtopic." That's the most blatantly unfair mod I've seen in my freaking life. Kind of like Anonymous itself: vindictive, capricious, and cowardly.

Re:So what is so great about Anonymous? (1)

ConfusedVorlon (657247) | about a year and a half ago | (#42688945)

It depends on who they're going after.
I certainly cheered when they took on Sony over the Geohot affair.

There is a romantic appeal of the anonymous hero/vigilante righting wrongs from the shadows...

Combined Total? (4, Insightful)

rjstanford (69735) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684175)

When multiple people are convicted of different things, listing their punishment as a "total" serves purely to make the story more lurid and, thus, to make whatever possibly reasonable point the author intended seem more likely to be incorrect. "Two of the three people credited with hacking financial networks received jail sentences, the longest for 18 months" would still be silly wording but at least not a blatent attempt to exaggerate.

Re:Combined Total? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684397)

Doesn't 18 + 7 + 6 = 31, not 25? Yes, one was suspended, but surely the headline (and thus the article) would have been more impressive by saying that they got 31 months of jail time!

Re:Combined Total? (1)

Maritz (1829006) | about a year and a half ago | (#42707021)

Yes. I'm reminded of this [guardian.co.uk] from the Guardian style guide: "Never invent a big figure when a small one will do. Totting jail sentences together ("the six men were jailed for a total of 87 years") is meaningless as well as irritating."

Hacktivist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684269)

Hacktivist? Is that the term we're going to keep using? Really?

Re:Hacktivist (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684643)

"Hacker" was co-opted to mean "criminal who happens to use a computer as anything more sophisticated than hitting someone over the head with one and mugging them."

Then Anonymous came along and started doing things which were clearly not simple crimes. "Hacktivist" was starting to sound different to the public. "Hackers are cybergangmembers and bad, but 'Hacktivists' have principles and are maybe good!"

The powers that be clearly realized they were losing the war of words, so now "Hacktivists" is going to be used to describe what had previously been called "hackers" and what should probably actually be called "plain criminals."

Re:Hacktivist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42685269)

Didn't it used to be:

Hackers were good guys, just a kind of programmer who would "hack" together various programs whi;e Crackers were malicious hackers?

Re:Hacktivist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42685393)

crackers are white people and has been a lot longer than any retarded hackers/crackers debate.

hackers break into computers.

you're probably looking for the word 'programmer', which is correct when used in the way that you use it.

Re:Hacktivist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42692855)

I hate these 12 year old idiots who think they know what hacker used to mean even though they have no fucking clue. For anyone wondering, (#42685269) is correct and the post I`m replying to is complete and utter idiocy.

Re:Hacktivist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42686259)

You might be interested in knowing that I've been writing a book about these guys.

It's called "Chillax: A Hacktivist Bromance"

The reason behind the attacks (1)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year and a half ago | (#42684287)

They attacked because they stopped giving Assange his money. Now who is the bad guy here?

Re:The reason behind the attacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684543)

Now who is the bad guy here?

Assange and the felons who love him.

You can learn some things about a person by looking at his enemies, and you can learn more by looking at his friends. Assange's enemies are (accused of at least) willing to manufacture sexual assault cases against him to discredit the sociopath. Assange's friends are willing to Smurf almost-relevant companies, and only succeed in annoying the previously uninvolved populace, destroying more sympathy than the sex allegations did.

And in case you couldn't tell, my sympathy for Assange has been exhausted, partly from his own behavior and even more from the sycophants on Slashdot who defend him as a saint.

Re:The reason behind the attacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42684701)

Spoken like a true one.

Re:The reason behind the attacks (1)

cornjones (33009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42685175)

gah, the money wasn't going to assange anyway. Paypal, mastercard, visa, etc stopped taking money for wikileaks. now, while assange may have started wikileaks, he is not wikileaks.

The circus around assange and the rape case seems odd, hopefully he will get a fair trial. if he is guilty he should pay. still nothing to do with wikileaks.

wikileaks provides, imho, a public good. I found it terrifying how quickly all the major payment players got into line to block funding to wikileaks. Action against that was warranted. Some of us donated money another way, some did less legal things and some of those are paying for it. the punishment seems excessive, i see this as likely bought justice.

I guess this does come back to assange after all, these guys had about as much chance of getting a fair trial.

Re:The reason behind the attacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42686249)

What makes you think there is only one?

Re:The reason behind the attacks (2)

aphelion_rock (575206) | about a year and a half ago | (#42686917)

They attacked because they stopped giving Assange his money. Now who is the bad guy here?

The world desperately needs a non-US based credit card so this sort of miss-guided government action doesn't happen again.

Re:The reason behind the attacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42707033)

Go for 'misguided' next time ;) Hey we're all helping each other to be better people.

"a total of"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42685799)

That's the way the Marxist scum media in the U.K. try to fool the public into thinking that criminals are getting longer sentences.
Stuff like "Jewellery gang get a total of 25 years" and then you find out there are five of them, so the average sentence they got was only five years.

If the government wanted to get rid of crime, they could do it in a couple of months tops - just massively increase the length of sentences, and put all the new criminals into prison camps. Tent cities. The bare minimum of food, no heating, no T.V., just selected books and that's it. Twenty years for burglary, twenty years for mugging, execution for murder, etc. Crime would drop by 99% as soon as the criminal scum realised they couldn't get away with it any more.

Re:"a total of"... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#42686921)

Cromwell tried that approach, it just made things worse.

Re:"a total of"... (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | about a year and a half ago | (#42689659)

That's the way the Marxist scum media in the U.K. try to fool the public into thinking that criminals are getting longer sentences.
Stuff like "Jewellery gang get a total of 25 years" and then you find out there are five of them, so the average sentence they got was only five years.

If the government wanted to get rid of crime, they could do it in a couple of months tops - just massively increase the length of sentences, and put all the new criminals into prison camps. Tent cities. The bare minimum of food, no heating, no T.V., just selected books and that's it. Twenty years for burglary, twenty years for mugging, execution for murder, etc. Crime would drop by 99% as soon as the criminal scum realised they couldn't get away with it any more.

Didn't the victorians try that before? I think I seem to remember from history class it didn't turn out so well.

Re:"a total of"... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42713559)

the Marxist scum media in the U.K.

Yes, reality has a Marxist bias.

Hardly anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42685943)

Anonymous and goes by a pseudonym.
Am I the only one who sees the problem here?

Re:Hardly anonymous (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#42686935)

Yes.

The jail term (1)

jago25_98 (566531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42686275)

Although I actually think it's a long sentance personnally (if it was up to me I'd leave it at a sentance with no jail time since not being able to get a job and turning to crime might be enough for a first time)... I think it's short for the political setup we're seeing come through; Daily Mail readers who say lock them up and throw away the key. As such I'd rather this sentence length than life sentances or whatever's going round in the USA.

Am I dickless for settling for that?

No sympathy here (1)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42687121)

Cue the slashdotters who'll defend them. They're *fucking thieves*. They deserve jail time.

Re:No sympathy here (1)

Patman64 (1622643) | about a year and a half ago | (#42688311)

Uh, no they aren't. But thanks for playing. Try reading the fucking article next time.

Hitler served less time for an attempted coup!!!! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42687155)

This is screwed up. Even the worst dictators in history have served less time. In 1923 Hitler attempted a coup with something like 600 men. He served just 9 months in jail. This was before coming to power legally (though what came later was contrary to the law of the land from my understanding of what happened). You would think threatening a countries leaders would get you more time than some minor protesting. Yes- this is protesting. It might be criminal although it is no worse than blocking traffic.

Re:Hitler served less time for an attempted coup!! (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year and a half ago | (#42697591)

Even the worst dictators in history have served less time.

These people didn't have the same sort of contacts.

You would think threatening a countries leaders would get you more time than some minor protesting. Yes- this is protesting.

Attacking services is not acceptable.

It might be criminal although it is no worse than blocking traffic.

People have died over blocked traffic and you want to raise it to that bar? Ok, you win.

Neat summary. I'll rephrase it. (1)

Legion303 (97901) | about a year and a half ago | (#42689653)

"People who break the law get punished accordingly. Film at 11."

Re:Neat summary. I'll rephrase it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42695135)

18 + 6 = 25, Film at 11!

oh really? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42690241)

They should have gotten another 6 months for being stupid and careless enough to get caught. Criminal negligence? Lol. It's reeeeeeally not hard these days to not get caught if you're a hacker. Just don't go around bragging, telling your little hacker friends your real name and where you live, or connecting to stuff through non-proxy or TOR means or letting anyone else use your computer. But of course Anonymous is like 100 copies of Kim Dotcom coming off a photocopier so ego comes before anonymity. Ironic, since their name is Anonymous.

Re:oh really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42691599)

Agreed. Wish I had mod points.

In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42696193)

...Gibson hacks you!

Contrast w/ Aaron Swartz facing 35 years in prison (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700315)

... for a much lesser "crime" of interfering with business models based on "artificial scarcity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz [wikipedia.org]

BTW, something Martin Luther King said:
http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr [wikiquote.org] .
"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."

Re:Contrast w/ Aaron Swartz facing 35 years in pri (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42713581)

. "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."

That does not mean that every illegal thing is right.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>