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!

eBay Founder Pleads For Leniency For the PayPal 14

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the reasonable-man-standards dept.

The Courts 225

DavidGilbert99 writes "The founder of eBay, the parent company of PayPal, Pierre Omidyar has called on U.S. prosecutors to have mercy on the 14 members of Anonymous who are appearing in court this week facing up to 15 years in jail and a $500,000 fine for their part in a DDoS attack against PayPal in 2010. Despite thousands of Anons taking part, and most of the damage being done by two major botnets, the 14 are set to bear all the responsibility if U.S. prosecutors have their way."

cancel ×

225 comments

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

EXAMPLE TO BE SHOWN !! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45607875)

Make them pay, pal !!

history in motion, transiting from hooliganism (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45607997)

it's sort of like how union leaders used to get put in jail (or killed) for organizing strikes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike [wikipedia.org]

Right now what they did does seem illegal hooliganism, as does most civil disobedience. Sometimes society adapts to see things differently. For now this is still hooliganism. I think they need to show a compelling good coming out of this if they expect a different response. The question is, what good would that be?

Re: history in motion, transiting from hooliganism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608319)

No good can come of things like this.

Re:history in motion, transiting from hooliganism (3, Insightful)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 9 months ago | (#45608845)

are these 14 people the lead organizers or instigators of the ddos, or just some kids who thought it would be cool but didn't hide their tracks etc?

Re:EXAMPLE TO BE SHOWN !! (0)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 9 months ago | (#45608451)

I'm not your pal, buddy!

Re:EXAMPLE TO BE SHOWN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608653)

I'm not your buddy, guy!

Re:EXAMPLE TO BE SHOWN !! (0)

twocows (1216842) | about 9 months ago | (#45608657)

I'm not your buddy, guy!

Re:EXAMPLE TO BE SHOWN !! (0)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 9 months ago | (#45608883)

I'm not your guy, friend!

Re:EXAMPLE TO BE SHOWN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608909)

Don't call me guy, dude!

Let em off cuz most weren't found? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45607935)

Why?

Re:Let em off cuz most weren't found? (5, Informative)

Wootery (1087023) | about 9 months ago | (#45608671)

I think the intent was that the full sum of the blame is unfairly being distributed across the few who were caught.

Re:Let em off cuz most weren't found? (4, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 9 months ago | (#45609069)

That, and, Omidyar feels that many of the participants in the PayPal DDoS saw it as a form of protest. He doesn't attribute malice to them.

Fuck Them (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45607953)

They broke the law, and they did it in such a way as to cause financial damage to the company they were targeting,

This isn't a harmless prank or victim-less crime: they cost people time and money.

There was a very simple way for them to avoid jail time: refrain from launching DDoS attacks. They chose not to avail themselves of it.

Fuck them.

Re:Fuck Them (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45607991)

Spray painting a wall costs people time and money, and you know what, we don't drop fines that ruin peoples' lives over it.

Re:Fuck Them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608047)

Those zero-tolerance policies of US schools sure have succeeded in producing zero-tolerant proto-American fascists, haven't they?

Re:Fuck Them (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45608227)

Eh, I faced zero tolerance policies, and I clearly agree with you more than the GGP. That sounds more like a "damn kids!!!" argument than anything to me.

Re:Fuck Them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608101)

Removing spray paint from a wall doesn't cost $5.5 million unless its the Sistine Chapel. Ruining peoples' lives over that much damage is par for the course.

Re:Fuck Them (4, Insightful)

PIBM (588930) | about 9 months ago | (#45608203)

Unless 10 000 people spray paint a town one night. If you catch a few of them (14 ?) and you know they only took a spray can and shot a few seconds (they did almost nothing vs the botnets), would you charge them for cleaning up the whole town ?

Re:Fuck Them (3, Insightful)

Imagix (695350) | about 9 months ago | (#45608751)

You need to complete your analogy. The ones that "only took a spray can and shot a few seconds" were willfully joining into an expansive coordinated attack with the intent to amplify the damage. This wasn't a case of "wrong place at the wrong time", they knew they were joining a larger group. One of Niven's laws... "Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at an armed man."

Re:Fuck Them (4, Insightful)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about 9 months ago | (#45608789)

There is an easier real world analogy than the one GP picked. If there's a city-wide riot and the police only are able to arrest a few people, do those few people have to pay for all of the damage done during the riot?

Re:Fuck Them (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45608251)

If I choose to pay someone $5.5 million to put up a "no trespassing" sign and a chain link fence after getting hit by vandals, that doesn't mean the vandals cost me $5.5MM

Re:Fuck Them (2, Insightful)

N1AK (864906) | about 9 months ago | (#45608729)

It costs virtually nothing to put up a sign and fence and is pretty much standard protocol. If vandalism was so bad in your area that you had to take considerably more action like paying guards, changing site layout etc then vandalism has cost you that money. Society normally puts a premium on punishments/fines etc to account for three (or more) things 1/ the odds of getting caught and 2/ the disproportionate costs crime can cause and 3/ to act as a deterrent.

If I steal £10 off someone in the street but then get caught a £10 fine won't put me off doing it again because I'm never worse off for doing it. £10 also isn't the real impact of my crime. Stealing the money may mean that my victim couldn't afford the bus and so lost 2 hours wages, they could feel unsafe in public, it could discourage other people from travelling to that area.

My crime, and the crimes of others, in combination have caused this and it is right that punishments consider it.

Re:Fuck Them (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 9 months ago | (#45608813)

Lol.. no it does not. But it also does not mean you escaped without costs. Those costs can be reasonable if they just compare similar costs of remedies in similar situations. So lets say that most people only spend 2 million to achieve the same thing if under the same constraints like energeny service instead of contract scheduling and 24 hour monitoring until it is safe from the threat. You can reasonably be expected to be liable for that and possibly more if there was no options reasonably priced.

You are not going to find a lot of logic and reasoning in this that is sympathetic to the criminals. This is by design as a deterent. But it is really no different for anything else when damage or impending damage happens. Try getting an insurance claim provessed after a hurricane if you refused to spend the money to board the windows up. My neighbor had a tree limb fall through the roof of his house last spring. He spent morre getting someone out at 3am to tarp it to keep the rain out then it finally cost to fix it. Of course the homeownwers insurance paid for it because they require you to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damage.

Re:Fuck Them (1)

trongey (21550) | about 9 months ago | (#45608139)

Spray painting a wall costs people time and money, and you know what, we don't drop fines that ruin peoples' lives over it.

Good point. It's about time we changed that. The current penalties certainly haven't proved to be a deterrent.

Re:Fuck Them (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45608211)

And however extreme your new proposed penalties are, they also won't because "what happens when I get caught" isn't the top of a vandals thoughts when they vandalize.

Re:Fuck Them (4, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | about 9 months ago | (#45608485)

So we should ignore the fact that making punishments harsher is a terrible deterrent; in spite of how simple it sounds? The chance of getting caught is what is an actual deterrent.

So hitting a few people, very hard, for an action much larger than them, produces very little result. Whereas slapping a lot of people lightly on the wrist, would likely produce a much bigger result.

Course, paypal deserved it. I applaud everyone who took part.

Re:Fuck Them (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 9 months ago | (#45608853)

In some cases neither is true. Look at speeding tickets and DUIs as an example. People do both and the penalties for one can be your freedom.

Re:Fuck Them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608223)

I think you meant impose a fine. Dropping the fine would mean they didn't have to pay.

Re:Fuck Them (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45608273)

Jesus Christ, can I make one post here with metaphorical language without someone coming along to say "don't you mean [literal version of the colloquialism I just used]?"

Re:Fuck Them (0)

Wootery (1087023) | about 9 months ago | (#45608707)

Alas, Slashdot literalism is here to stay.

Re: Fuck Them (2, Interesting)

sycodon (149926) | about 9 months ago | (#45608341)

This wasn't spray painting a wall. It was more like barricading the doors. Painted walls don't stop you from doing business.

Re: Fuck Them (2)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 9 months ago | (#45608515)

To follow the analogy, how is this different from setting up a picket line out front of someone's front door to protest some of the things that said company is doing that you find morally objectionable?

Should the physical analog of this very same situation also be subject to a 5.5 million dollar fine?

Re: Fuck Them (1)

Zantac69 (1331461) | about 9 months ago | (#45608747)

Shit comparison. One can simply walk past or through a picket line and into the buisness and have your transaction. I have done it before...and would do it again.

Want to protest, hold a sign, get some light cardio marching in a circle chanting catchly slogans? Go ahead!
Want to get in my way for doing buisness? Then fuck you and the horse you rode in on as you are not going to waste my time and money with your "cause."

Re: Fuck Them (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 9 months ago | (#45608777)

Because a picket line is a visible display. You motherfuckers move out of the way, you're blocking the customers; annoying them is fine. If picketers physically barre customers from entry to a place of business, they get pepper spray and handcuffs.

Re: Fuck Them (2)

stewsters (1406737) | about 9 months ago | (#45608887)

They were not physically blocking you from sending http requests to the sight, they were just sending them faster then you can. Its like if to protest McDonalds, protesters lined up and ordered waters. Its annoying and costs money, but if you spend 5.5 million dollars to add a line specifically for water, do the 5 out of 1000 protesters you caught deserve to pay for all of it?

Re: Fuck Them (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 9 months ago | (#45608927)

McDonalds can order the picketers off the premises, and they have to wait outside and let customers pass. The act of sending an HTTP request is, on the other hand, actually blocking others from sending requests.

Re: Fuck Them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608821)

To follow the analogy, how is this different from setting up a picket line out front of someone's front door to protest some of the things that said company is doing that you find morally objectionable?

The difference is that a picket line shouldn't be using physical force to stop customers from entering the store.

Re: Fuck Them (1)

LocutusMIT (10726) | about 9 months ago | (#45609027)

It's different because a picket line can be crossed. Picketing relies on convincing potential customers to choose not to patronize a particular business. A better analogy for a DDOS attack might be deliberately blocking the doors so customers can't get in--for which the business can (and often successfully does) sue for lost income.

This isn't to say that picketing doesn't sometimes get out of hand, or that the penalty currently on the table isn't way too high. To be honest, I always thought that these sorts of damages were handled in a civil lawsuit after the criminal proceedings. But I'm not an expert in law.

Re:Fuck Them (4, Insightful)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about 9 months ago | (#45608507)

Spray painting a wall costs people time and money, and you know what, we don't drop fines that ruin peoples' lives over it.

We have zero tolerance for making companies lose money... now when companies or banks make us lose money (or homes), it just shows the system works (the way they designed it).

Re:Fuck Them (3, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 9 months ago | (#45608079)

These few are fined for the actions of thousands of individuals.
This means that if the detectives did their job better and caught more individuals, each individuals' fines would be lower.
Why should these individuals be punished for a sloppy job done by others?
They should be punished, they should pay a fine and they should pay damages. But they shouldn't have to pay damage caused by others.

Re:Fuck Them (2)

N1AK (864906) | about 9 months ago | (#45608769)

But they shouldn't have to pay damage caused by others.

They shouldn't have to pay for all the damage caused by others however I think the case can be made for considering the damage caused by the whole group when punishing individuals involved. On a basic level a DDoS goes from ineffective to partially effective to effective when more people take part and on another level their involvement helped build up the critical mass behind the attack.

Re:Fuck Them (3, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 9 months ago | (#45608149)

Oe noes. Financial damage oh the woe. Nothing can be so bad as financial damage. We must nail their balls to a wall to serve an example to others.

Fuck them.

Apparently the chaiman of the coppany that owns the damaged one wants leniency. That is the person who represents those who suffered financial damage. Who the hell are you to call otherwise?

Re:Fuck Them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608295)

He's the Lap Dog of the State.

Re:Fuck Them (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 9 months ago | (#45608351)

That is the person who represents those who suffered financial damage. Who the hell are you to call otherwise?

Justice is blind. It doesn't matter what the harmed think. It's a criminal prosecution.

Re:Fuck Them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608201)

"They broke the law, and they did it in such a way as to cause financial damage to the company they were targeting,"

Next up: 14 people arrested and facing charges that could see them jailed for a decade for sitting on the sidewalk in front of the door to a local business, blocking legitimate customers from access.

News on your local Telescreen at 11.

Re:Fuck Them (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 9 months ago | (#45608663)

I don't agree with them, I don't like many many things about anonymous etc but punishing 14 comparatively minor parts of a DDoS attack as though they caused all the damage isn't moderate, responsible or effective. There is a difference between giving them a punishment that has a deterrent affect and this nonsense.

The issue, imo, is that an embarrassingly small number of people are being prosecuted for this (surely hundreds, or thousands, of the perpetrators existed in the US or countries that would cooperate. Instead of doing things properly and punishing a lot of people moderately, they are going to drop a bomb on 14 chumps and fully ruin their lives. Parts of the state are trying to avoid criticism about catching so few people by victimising the few they have.

It won't be an effective deterrent because so few people have been caught that the people involved will continue to think that the odds of being caught in future are tiny.

Re:Fuck Them (0)

mythosaz (572040) | about 9 months ago | (#45608871)

Now that thousands of other anon's know that if you get caught, you get royally shafted, they might think twice...

If a thousand men bum-rush a guy, each sticking a pin into him, and the man dies the death of a thousand needles, and 986 of the pin attackers escape, do you charge the 14 that you caught with his murder -- or should they be let off the hook? [Now, of course I know that DDOSing a website isn't murder, but this is /. and I'm fresh out of car analogies.]

This is like the guy who stole a nickle yesterday. He's still a thief. Try these kids for the crime, and dole out the right amount of justice on each of them based on their records (or lack of records) appropriately. ...but understand their crime is still "murder," not just battery.

Re:Fuck Them (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 9 months ago | (#45608771)

It looks like Paypal is saying, "This won't decrease our business risk, it won't impact the actual source of the problem, and these people aren't responsible for or capable of the damage they did. On their own, they would annoy the network security guys; most of the network guys wouldn't notice them. This isn't relevant to us; except that if these kids get fucking crushed for this people we can't fight will be pissed at us and kick us more! We need to stop this to reduce our risk of suffering mob justice!"

Somewhere around there, some folks felt the system was unfair and brought up an argument. It turned into a business argument. That's basically how it works.

I knew there was a reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45607981)

I knew there was a reason I took it up the ass from Omidyar for VC cash. He is a gentle and kind lover.

bad BIOS saga continues - 12/13 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45607983)

Scientist-developed malware prototype covertly jumps air gaps using inaudible sound
-
Malware communicates at a distance of 65 feet using built-in mics and speakers.

by Dan Goodin - Dec 2, 2013 7:29 pm UTC

http://arstechnica.com/author/dan-goodin [arstechnica.com]
https://twitter.com/dangoodin001 [twitter.com]

"Dan is the IT Security Editor at Ars Technica, which he joined in 2012 after working for The Register, the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, and other publications."

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-malware-covertly-jumps-air-gaps-using-inaudible-sound/ [arstechnica.com]

-
Topology of a covert mesh network that connects air-gapped computers to the Internet:

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/acoustical-mesh-network.jpg [arstechnica.net]

http://www.jocm.us/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=124&id=600 [www.jocm.us]
-

"Computer scientists have proposed a malware prototype that uses inaudible audio signals to communicate, a capability that allows the malware to covertly transmit keystrokes and other sensitive data even when infected machines have no network connection.

The proof-of-concept software-or malicious trojans that adopt the same high-frequency communication methods-could prove especially adept in penetrating highly sensitive environments that routinely place an "air gap" between computers and the outside world. Using nothing more than the built-in microphones and speakers of standard computers, the researchers were able to transmit passwords and other small amounts of data from distances of almost 65 feet. The software can transfer data at much greater distances by employing an acoustical mesh network made up of attacker-controlled devices that repeat the audio signals.

The researchers, from Germany's Fraunhofer Institute for Communication, Information Processing, and Ergonomics[1], recently disclosed their findings in a paper published in the Journal of Communications[2]. It came a few weeks after a security researcher said his computers were infected with a mysterious piece of malware that used high-frequency transmissions to jump air gaps[3]. The new research neither confirms nor disproves Dragos Ruiu's claims of the so-called badBIOS infections, but it does show that high-frequency networking is easily within the grasp of today's malware."

[1] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de/en.html [fraunhofer.de]
[2] http://www.jocm.us/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=124&id=600 [www.jocm.us]
[3] http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/10/meet-badbios-the-mysterious-mac-and-pc-malware-that-jumps-airgaps/ [arstechnica.com]

""In our article, we describe how the complete concept of air gaps can be considered obsolete as commonly available laptops can communicate over their internal speakers and microphones and even form a covert acoustical mesh network," one of the authors, Michael Hanspach, wrote in an e-mail. "Over this covert network, information can travel over multiple hops of infected nodes, connecting completely isolated computing systems and networks (e.g. the internet) to each other. We also propose some countermeasures against participation in a covert network."

The researchers developed several ways to use inaudible sounds to transmit data between two Lenovo T400 laptops using only their built-in microphones and speakers. The most effective technique relied on software originally developed to acoustically transmit data under water. Created by the Research Department for Underwater Acoustics and Geophysics in Germany, the so-called adaptive communication system (ACS) modem was able to transmit data between laptops as much as 19.7 meters (64.6 feet) apart. By chaining additional devices that pick up the signal and repeat it to other nearby devices, the mesh network can overcome much greater distances.

The ACS modem provided better reliability than other techniques that were also able to use only the laptops' speakers and microphones to communicate. Still, it came with one significant drawback-a transmission rate of about 20 bits per second, a tiny fraction of standard network connections. The paltry bandwidth forecloses the ability of transmitting video or any other kinds of data with large file sizes. The researchers said attackers could overcome that shortcoming by equipping the trojan with functions that transmit only certain types of data, such as login credentials captured from a keylogger or a memory dumper.

"This small bandwidth might actually be enough to transfer critical information (such as keystrokes)," Hanspach wrote. "You don't even have to think about all keystrokes. If you have a keylogger that is able to recognize authentication materials, it may only occasionally forward these detected passwords over the network, leading to a very stealthy state of the network. And you could forward any small-sized information such as private encryption keys or maybe malicious commands to an infected piece of construction."
Remember Flame?

The hurdles of implementing covert acoustical networking are high enough that few malware developers are likely to add it to their offerings anytime soon. Still, the requirements are modest when measured against the capabilities of Stuxnet, Flame, and other state-sponsored malware discovered in the past 18 months. And that means that engineers in military organizations, nuclear power plants, and other truly high-security environments should no longer assume that computers isolated from an Ethernet or Wi-Fi connection are off limits.

The research paper suggests several countermeasures that potential targets can adopt. One approach is simply switching off audio input and output devices, although few hardware designs available today make this most obvious countermeasure easy. A second approach is to employ audio filtering that blocks high-frequency ranges used to covertly transmit data. Devices running Linux can do this by using the advanced Linux Sound Architecture in combination with the Linux Audio Developer's Simple Plugin API. Similar approaches are probably available for Windows and Mac OS X computers as well. The researchers also proposed the use of an audio intrusion detection guard, a device that would "forward audio input and output signals to their destination and simultaneously store them inside the guard's internal state, where they are subject to further analyses."

* * *
Update
* * *

On Wednesday Hanspach issued the following statement:

        Fraunhofer FKIE is actively involved in information security research. Our mission is to strengthen security by the means of early detection and prevention of potential threats. The research on acoustical mesh networks in air was aimed at demonstrating the upcoming threat of covert communication technologies. Fraunhofer FKIE does not develop any malware or viruses and the presented proof-of-concept does not spread to other computing systems, but constitutes only a covert communication channel between hypothetical instantiations of a malware. The ultimate goal of the presented research project is to raise awareness for these kinds of attacks, and to deliver appropriate countermeasures to our customers.

Story updated to add "prototype" to the first sentence and headline and to change "developed" to "proposed," in the first sentence. The changes are intended to make clear the researchers have not created a piece of working malware."

-
RE: #badBIOS, badBIOS, bad BIOS
-

* * *
Some User Comments:
* * *

"What makes so many people here think that getting a computer first infected is such an impossible task?

Who is to To say computers don't come pre-configured with that ability in hardware, say the CPU? We know that the NSA has altered silicon in the "distant" past and if there is anything recent revelations have taught us then it is that things have only ever become technically more advanced and aggressive in the last ten years or so.

Remember: just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you....Australia being happy to share medical records of its ordinary citizens being a prime example of that in today's press."

Amadeus71 Smack-Fu Master, in traininget Subscriptor

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-malware-covertly-jumps-air-gaps-using-inaudible-sound/?comments=1&post=25785017#comment-25785017 [arstechnica.com]

-

"This was controversial at the time Dragos Ruiu brought it up. My guess was that it was possible, I'm glad to see someone actually put in the hard work to find out! Good job Fraunhofer."

MujokanArs Praetorian

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-malware-covertly-jumps-air-gaps-using-inaudible-sound/?comments=1&post=25785087#comment-25785087 [arstechnica.com]

-

"Human hearing also gets worse at high frequencies before cutting out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour [wikipedia.org]

Several years ago, I had a neighbor with an old-fangled CRT TV. I couldn't hear its 15.9kHz squeal from my apartment, but it did show up clearly in spectral graphs of recordings I made while it was on. It's not hard to imagine something using audio band frequencies at volumes low enough to escape audibility but still able to be picked up by nearby microphones."

LnxPrgr3 Smack-Fu Master, in training

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-malware-covertly-jumps-air-gaps-using-inaudible-sound/?comments=1&post=25785217#comment-25785217 [arstechnica.com]

-

"The signal can be hidden in fully audible sounds, so that wouldn't help much. As other commenters have alluded, using spread-spectrum techniques, a signal can be hidden in a way that looks like just part of the ambient noise environment, at many different frequencies, perhaps both at the same time and in a time-varying distribution. For example, if there is a fan (perhaps a notebook fan) going in the environment, that can be measured, and information could be encoded in a slight deformation of that sound signature, in a way that no one would notice. Or if someone is speaking, tiny undetectable side-frequencies could be added in a way that sounds like part of their voice, but isn't really. Or if you use a random spread-spectrum approach, it could just sound like a slight bit of white noise in the background, a little hiss, that mingles with all the noise around you.

Be afraid. In cyberspace, all microphones can hear you scream."

AreWeThereYeti Ars Scholae Palatinaeet Subscriptor

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-malware-covertly-jumps-air-gaps-using-inaudible-sound/?comments=1&post=25785535#comment-25785535 [arstechnica.com]
-

"If you're breaking your laptop open to put a capacitor across your speaker why not cut the wires or put a mechanical switch in instead?"

Wickwick Ars Scholae Palatinae

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-malware-covertly-jumps-air-gaps-using-inaudible-sound/?comments=1&post=25786631#comment-25786631 [arstechnica.com]
-

"Personally I would physically disable every mic and speaker on these air-gapped computers, juts in case."

blacke Ars Praetorianet Subscriptor

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-malware-covertly-jumps-air-gaps-using-inaudible-sound/?comments=1&post=25789071#comment-25789071 [arstechnica.com]
-

"I wonder if you couldn't just cut off a jack from some old headphones, and keep it plugged in as a countermeasure..."

zantoka Smack-Fu Master, in training

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-malware-covertly-jumps-air-gaps-using-inaudible-sound/?comments=1&post=25791713#comment-25791713 [arstechnica.com]
-

"NorthGuy wrote:
My florescent light has been buzzing for weeks, do you think it's trying to hack my computer?"

Li-Fi

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128225.400-will-lifi-be-the-new-wifi.html [newscientist.com]

Jimmy McNulty Smack-Fu Master, in training

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-malware-covertly-jumps-air-gaps-using-inaudible-sound/?comments=1&post=25792319#comment-25792319 [arstechnica.com]
-

"are the sounds in their [mainstream] music transmitting data to invaded brains?"

DaHum Smack-Fu Master, in training

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-malware-covertly-jumps-air-gaps-using-inaudible-sound/?comments=1&post=25799877#comment-25799877 [arstechnica.com]

-

The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 specifies certain circumstances where all or a substantial part of a copyright work may be used without the copyright owner's permission. A "fair dealing" with copyright material does not infringe copyright if it is for the following purposes: research or private study; criticism or review; or reporting current events.

-

* * *
Related Story:
* * *

Researchers create malware that communicates via silent sound, no network needed

"When security researcher Dragos Ruiu claimed malware dubbed "badBIOS"[1] allowed infected machines to communicate using sound waves alone-no network connection needed-people said he was crazy. New research from Germany's Fraunhofer Institute for Communication, Information Processing, and Ergonomics suggests he's all too sane.

As outlined in the Journal of Communications (PDF)[2] and first spotted by ArsTechnica[3], the proof-of-concept malware prototype from Michael Hanspach and Michael Goetz can transmit information between computers using high-frequency sound waves inaudible to the human ear. The duo successfully sent passwords and more between non-networked Lenovo T400 laptops via the notebooks' built-in microphones and speakers. Freaky-deaky!

"The infected victim sends all recorded keystrokes to the covert acoustical mesh network. Infected drones forward the keystroke information inside the covert network till the attacker is reached."

The most successful method was based on software developed for underwater communications. The laptops could communicate a full 65 feet apart from each other, and the researchers say the range could be extended by chaining devices together in an audio "mesh" network, similar to the way Wi-Fi repeaters work.

While the research doesn't prove Ruiu's badBIOS claims, it does show that the so-called "air gap" defense-that is, leaving computers with critical information disconnected from any networks-could still be vulnerable to dedicated attackers, if attackers are first able to infect the PC with audio mesh-enabled malware."

[1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/2060360/security-researcher-says-new-malware-can-affect-your-bios-be-transmitted-via-the-air.html [pcworld.com]
[2] http://www.jocm.us/uploadfile/2013/1125/20131125103803901.pdf [www.jocm.us]
[3] http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-malware-covertly-jumps-air-gaps-using-inaudible-sound/ [arstechnica.com]

-

Sending data via sound

http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2013/12/air-gap-keystrokes-100154940-orig.png [techhive.com]

-

"Transmitting data via sound waves has one glaring drawback, however: It's slow. Terribly slow. Hanspach and Goetz's malware topped out at a sluggish 20 bits-per-second transfer rate, but that was still fast enough to transmit keystrokes, passwords, PGP encryption keys, and other small bursts of information.

"We use the keylogging software logkeys for our experiment," they wrote. "The infected victim sends all recorded keystrokes to the covert acoustical mesh network. Infected drones forward the keystroke information inside the covert network till the attacker is reached, who is now able to read the current keyboard input of the infected victim from a distant place."

In another test, the researchers used sound waves to send keystroke information to a network-connected computer, which then sent the information to the "attacker" via email.

Now for the good news: This advanced proof-of-concept prototype isn't likely to work its way into everyday malware anytime soon, especially since badware that communicates via normal Net means should be all that's needed to infect the PCs of most users. Nevertheless, it's ominous to see the last-line "air gap" defense fall prey to attack-especially in an age of state-sponsored malware run rampant."

#

The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 specifies certain circumstances where all or a substantial part of a copyright work may be used without the copyright owner's permission. A "fair dealing" with copyright material does not infringe copyright if it is for the following purposes: research or private study; criticism or review; or reporting current events.

##

EOT

Activism (4, Insightful)

Luthair (847766) | about 9 months ago | (#45607985)

Its odd how online activism is treated much differently than that which occurs in meatspace. Many protests occur in real life where access to buildings or simply roads are blocked yet the treatment of the two types protestors is very different.

Re:Activism (1)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 9 months ago | (#45608095)

Don't worry, if this sets a prescident the next Occupy Wallstreet type protesters that block sidewalks will start receiving huge fines and jailtime.

Re:Activism (4, Insightful)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about 9 months ago | (#45608147)

It's a difference in views. People view blocking a street as free speech. They see people staging a sit-in as trying to raise awareness for their cause and the send a message.

DDoS, on the other hand, they view as vandalism (unfathomably severe vandalism, if these prosecutors are to be believed).

Objectively, I don't see much of a difference between a sit-in and a DDoS but that might just be because I understand what a DDoS is. Most people don't.

Re:Activism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608267)

The difference between a protest and a DDoS is that a protest is you and your body taking up space. A DDoS is similar to if you filled every street with stuff that isn't you (bouncy balls for example) and letting it represent you, which I think is a bit more illegal in the real world.

Re:Activism (4, Insightful)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 9 months ago | (#45608595)

To follow the analogy, "filling the streets with stuff" is illegal due to it's classification as littering and that effort needs to be undertaken to remove said litter.

Once a DDoS attack is completed (assuming that the sole action taken was DDoS and not defacement or intrusion), there is nothing to "clean up". When you stop, everyone picks up their "stuff" and walks away.

Re:Activism (2)

Talderas (1212466) | about 9 months ago | (#45608387)

The difference between a protest and a DDoS is that the protest which may or may not block access is capable of clearly demonstrating its views and what it's opposing. A DDoS conveys no such additional message. The parallel comparison between a DDoS attack and something similar in the meatspace would be to erect a bland and featureless wall around a business and then have one person in city in another country standing on the corner of an intersection yelling about whatever problem the business is apparently engaging in.

Re:Activism (0)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#45608481)

So it is like the occutards.

Re:Activism (2)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about 9 months ago | (#45608863)

I heard a story about a bunch of truckers who wanted to ride slowly around DC to block up the roads in protest. (I can't think of their names to provide a link). They most certainly considered it free speech despite the fact that the thousands of people behind them on the highway have no idea what's going on. I don't know if they ever went through with it. If they did, would they have been thrown in jail for a decade and fined for all of the financial damage it caused?

That parallel seems pretty clear to me.

Re:Activism (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 9 months ago | (#45609043)

would they have been thrown in jail for a decade and fined for all of the financial damage it caused?

They should have been. Driving your truck is not "speech." Purposefully shutting down the city deserves punishment.

Re:Activism (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608511)

You don't see a difference because you aren't being objective.

A protest is people communicating some kind of a message in a public place. Sometimes it is inconvenient when they block streets, etc. A DDoS on the other hand is like guys in ski masks showing up at your shop, kicking in the doors, running off your customers and not allowing you to do business for as long as they are there.

Re:Activism (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 9 months ago | (#45608151)

Not that I agree with any of these outcomes, but online activism requires a much lower amount of effort to take part and potentially has a much greater effect.

Re:Activism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608157)

If you want to compare this with meatspace protest arrests, then they are absolutely the same.

Very few protesters, proportionately to the size of the protest, ever get arrested. The police just grab whoever's immediately at hand or slow to escape. The "ringleader" could just be the guy that shouts the loudest or throws the most rocks.

Re:Activism (2)

raymansean (1115689) | about 9 months ago | (#45608161)

I agree to an extent. However; in one case you actually show up for the protest, in the other case you get a bunch of proxies to show up instead. Had the protest been achieved via the "slashdot" effect, nothing would have came of this. However manipulating machines to amplify your effect should be frowned upon.

Re:Activism (1)

trongey (21550) | about 9 months ago | (#45608169)

Its odd how online activism is treated much differently than that which occurs in meatspace. Many protests occur in real life where access to buildings or simply roads are blocked yet the treatment of the two types protestors is very different.

So you're suggesting that online activists should be tear-gassed, clubbed, and maybe a few of them shot? That doesn't seem very practical.

Re: Activism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608373)

Yes! I'm in. I have all the needed equipment. Let the flogging begin!

Re:Activism (5, Interesting)

robinsonne (952701) | about 9 months ago | (#45608279)

The difference being that meatspace activism is almost pointless these days. It might get a 30 second mention on the news on a slow day, but otherwise you're just shunted into a "free speech zone", traffic gets routed around the protest and is flat out ignored.

Hacktivism on the other hand, has relatively immediate, noticeable (sometimes very much so) consequences that can either cost an organization money or if nothing else cause embarrassment.

Meatspace protests make you feel good, and are probably amusing to the powers that be. Online, a few people can a real nuisance, which is what activism is trying to do: be a nuisance until a change happens. [sarcasm] We can't have things like that happening in this country. Obviously we have to set an example for these 14 people. [/sarcasm]

Re:Activism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608293)

Of course, this DDoS effectively stopped hundreds of thousands of people if not millions. This isn't blocking access to a few people trying to get into a building, this is protesting in the middle of a major highway during rush hours.

Re:Activism (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 9 months ago | (#45608331)

...

If you block roads or entrances to buildings you will be arrested and fined. Protesting or not.

If you have a permit to protest in a particular area, you will not, but you also won't be blocking entrance to businesses or important roads, and when you do ... you'll get arrested.

Have you ever looked at an actual protest anytime in your life? Do you know anything at all about them?

He Doesnt want anon backlash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45607999)

And neither do we posters. Everybody submitting anonymously. Or wait, im a member too. I think. Help me, Moss?!

Unfortunately, guilt by direct association is real (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608007)

And the prosecutors are probably out to send a message to all the potential hangers-on, that what they're doing is going to result in serious consequences.

That way they have to think what will happen if they get caught, and it won't be a slap on the wrist.

Which doesn't mean I think that what Anonymous was doing in this wasn't based on a genuinely good idea, I'm just expressing the intentions of the Justice Department.

Re:Unfortunately, guilt by direct association is r (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45608067)

But it won't work that way. It's never really worked that way. Making things more illegal doesn't really put more hindrance on what people do compared to just being illegal, else we'd have the whole crack thing wrapped up by now.

"Tough on crime" is a moronic stance that doesn't address why people actually engage in crimes. A hint: very few people breaking the law are thinking rationally about consequences when they do.

The facts speak otherwise. (3, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | about 9 months ago | (#45608655)

... a position which is frightfully naive. Of course making things more illegal is a deterrent. It used to be totally legal to drive with your kids in the back of your truck on the open freeway. It's now more illegal (at least in California) and you don't see (very many) people driving on the freeway with kids in the back of their truck.

All officially recognized crimes are punished with the intent of deterring future crime, and you live in a time and place which ranks as among the most peaceful and civilized periods in all of known history. To suggest that this concept does not work betrays a stunning lack of understanding and respect for all the work put in by the millions of people who worked to establish and maintain the system that provides such domestic peace and tranquility.

Did you actually think that spending 10 years in jail actually compensates the parents and loved ones of a murder victim? Sorry, if they're dead, no amount of punishment will ever bring them back, and until you've personally experienced the loss of a close loved one, you cannot really understand just how devastating such a loss can be.
  However, even sociopaths can understand personal injury and suffering even if they lack the ability empathize in any way with their victims.

Re:The facts speak otherwise. (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 9 months ago | (#45608913)

Of course making things more illegal is a deterrent

Legal is a binary function.

Will the Government Listen? (5, Interesting)

Grantbridge (1377621) | about 9 months ago | (#45608055)

This makes perfect sense. If an angry mob smashes up some shops fronts, but police only catch 14 people you wouldn't charge them with the total damage of the entire mob, as well as the cost of upgrading security to protect against an angry mob in the future. You would charge each individual according to the damage they actually did. In this case a single person using LOIC doesn't really do any significant damage at all. You could charge them a 1/1000 of the cost of overtime for personal to deal with the attack, and the extra bandwidth they caused the company, but its madness to hold them responsible for the damage done by the entire swarm. In a cynical POV, this is also an excellent way for PayPall to remove themselves as a target when the PayPal14 are found guility.

Re:Will the Government Listen? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 9 months ago | (#45608083)

It's called conspiracy.

Re:Will the Government Listen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608277)

Also on top of that you do put a *bit* of a sting to it. The idea behind jail/fines is to discourage people from doing it. Not 'oh if I get caught I am only out cost'. The trick though is how much sting do you put into it. In this case not life ruining. But maybe a couple of months in jail with a decent fine? Enough to say 'it is kind of stupid to do that' but not enough to say just because you joined a mob your life is over.

Re:Will the Government Listen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608461)

When people commit crimes, even if they are in groups, they are charged with the entire crime, not just their portion of their participation. Your logic would suggest that if me and a pal went and killed someone, we would each be charged with 1/2 of a murder.

Re:Will the Government Listen? (1)

tobiasly (524456) | about 9 months ago | (#45608783)

If an angry mob smashes up some shops fronts, but police only catch 14 people you wouldn't charge them with the total damage of the entire mob, as well as the cost of upgrading security to protect against an angry mob in the future. You would charge each individual according to the damage they actually did.

No, it's not just about making the target of the attack whole, there is also a punitive aspect in order to discourage others in the future. The actual amounts in this case do seem excessive, but it has to hurt enough that future "anonymous cowards" seriously think twice before jumping in. Part of the mob mentality is thinking "there are so many of us, there's no way they'll catch me" and this shows that's just not true.

Look, I dislike PayPal as much as anyone but vigilante mob justice isn't the answer and there has to be more than a slap on the wrist.

They're wasting my tax dollars on these bozos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608071)

n/t

Script kiddies of gen Y (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608135)

We need to stop this stupid 4chan-born vigilanitism of this millennial generation. Time to set an example.

Had Pierre stayed at eBay, maybe it wouldn't suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608187)

I read "The Perfect Store" about eBay and Pierre seems like a really cool guy. Too bad us eBay sellers ended up having to endure Meg Whitman.

Re:Had Pierre stayed at eBay, maybe it wouldn't su (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about 9 months ago | (#45608953)

Too bad us eBay sellers ended up having to endure Meg Whitman.

You think *she* was bad?? Her successor, John Donahoe is MUCH MUCH worse.. I'd sold on eBay since around 1998, and Meg's tenure was positively refreshing compared to Donahoes.. Her mantra was "eBay is just a venue", and pretty much stuck to it.. With Donahoe, its ALL about the buyers now, they can do no wrong.. He seems to convieniently forget that it is the SELLERS who pay the ever-growing fees that keep eBay running. The sellers, who stick around, now have a not-so-silent partner in their business, butting in with endless new rules and requirements, where he has NO business.. He seems to be trying to rid eBay of all small sellers, such that unless you peddle millions of $$ of cheap Chinese crap each month, eBay doesn't want you.. From about 1998 to 2008, I sold probably 2-3K/mo, as a nice sideline business.. Since 2008, I no longer sell there, and if you read the eBay forums, you'll see I sure *aint* the only one...

AND (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608225)

And if they get an unjust sentence, like Brown or Hammond did, then Paypal, and Ebay should probably expect a massive retaliation from Anonymous.

I'm just sayin.

hey guys lets go easy on them (1)

nimbius (983462) | about 9 months ago | (#45608243)

because if they all end up with 15 year sentences, people might start asking why we're such a sensitive target thats so dangerous to attack. it might draw more attention to our business practices and confidential information. our own employees might become sympathetic, nay, might start 'leaking' information on how we skirt banking regulations and use our market dominance to arbitrarily freeze funds or hold 30% of transactions for 90 days, or how we refuse to pay bug bounties and lock out entire countries without explanation.

so if we could just stop over-reacting to this silly hacktivism and just go about our business that would be swell.

Re:hey guys lets go easy on them (1)

wispoftow (653759) | about 9 months ago | (#45608413)

we should also stop over-reacting to maximum sentencing guidelines. You know that if they are found guilty, it will be a small fraction of the time.

Re:hey guys lets go easy on them (1)

cmdr_klarg (629569) | about 9 months ago | (#45608419)

because if they all end up with 15 year sentences, people might start asking why we're such a sensitive target thats so dangerous to attack. it might draw more attention to our business practices and confidential information. our own employees might become sympathetic, nay, might start 'leaking' information on how we skirt banking regulations and use our market dominance to arbitrarily freeze funds or hold 30% of transactions for 90 days, or how we refuse to pay bug bounties and lock out entire countries without explanation.

so if we could just stop over-reacting to this silly hacktivism and just go about our business that would be swell.

Yeah, and I might be a Chinese jet pilot...

Re:hey guys lets go easy on them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608737)

I think I saw you in this video [youtube.com]
That touch-and-go at 3:15 was pretty hot

Deterrent (5, Informative)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 9 months ago | (#45608247)

The objective here isn't to punish anyone proportionally to the crimes they committed. The whole point of online activists having the book thrown at them is to deter future activists.

The corporations already feel like meatspace activists have too many rights, so it is imperative to set a precedent that online activism will be dealt with harshly.

Re:Deterrent (3, Interesting)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about 9 months ago | (#45608579)

The objective here isn't to punish anyone proportionally to the crimes they committed. The whole point of online activists having the book thrown at them is to deter future activists.

You are right that this is a deterrence. I posted yesterday a much longer comment about this in the thread about the guy who got a huge fine and 2 years probation for participating for a very short time in the DOS. Basically US law allows for punitive damages in some cases and the system allows them to be exorbitant and perhaps even illogical. Sometimes these get reduced on appeal, but not always. The point is indeed to provide a deterrent against others doing the same thing in the future. It's not at all about fairness. If you are American and don't like it, work to change the system (probably not possible though) or complain all you want, but it's not going away. If you're not American, you can complain all you want about it but you can't change it.

I mentioned this in my post yesterday too, but some of it is that jury members in general know little about technology and some are almost Luddites. Judges and lawyers in general also know little about technology. This leads to prosecutors and judges overreacting against things they don't understand very well and juries overreacting to punish people due to not really understanding what they did.

Re:Deterrent (2)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 9 months ago | (#45608791)

This leads to prosecutors and judges overreacting against things they don't understand very well and juries overreacting to punish people due to not really understanding what they did.

I don't assume that the prosecutors and judges are overreacting because they don't understand technology. I think they understand completely that it is in the corporation's best interests to have disproportionate penalties for online activism compared to meatspace activism. They already lost the fight in meatspace, protests get a lot of coverage and it is really bad PR to see police pepper spraying protesters. I think they have the clear goal of establishing that online protests/activism will not be tolerated and the penalties will be much more severe than a meatspace protest.

Imagine if online protests become an accepted form of civil disobedience? It would be much more difficult to control the masses because they could participate anonymously from their couch. Compare that to an old fashioned protest where people have to miss work and travel and stay outside and sometimes tolerate brutal police action. The masses complaints might actually be addressed instead of ignored.

Re:Deterrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608885)

I mentioned this in my post yesterday too, but some of it is that jury members in general know little about technology and some are almost Luddites.

Which goes to show you just how broken the justice system was. Because the whole point of a "jury of your peers" is to avoid this sort of circumstance. It's also meant to give more credit to the law. It is to create the situation where one can say "he had a jury of his peers, who would generally be sympathetic to his cause, yet even they thought his crime was so heinous that they wanted the book thrown at him". Of course, you would want to draw the line somewhere--organized mobs would love such a system where only mob members were on the jury--, but clearly if the judge and/or jury don't understand what's being discussed and they don't give ample enough time to the defendant [and his lawyer(s)] to explain it (something that's possibly reasonably impossible unless they're already well versed in the subject), then the situation will almost certainly turn out bad--that justice should prevail would be more a fluke.

It's no different than the other article about Oracle vs Google and the judge who actually knew something about programming. It makes me wonder if the ridiculous standards for violating another's music copyright (a few notes) has to do with a judge who was very unknowledgeable about music or perhaps the opposite--the comment that all drama is just copies of the Greek classics comes to mind?

Re:Deterrent (2)

Max Threshold (540114) | about 9 months ago | (#45608903)

I'll accept that argument when we start executing cops for using excessive force.

Nail them to the wall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608265)

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. Stealing money from peoples' paypal accounts is not the right way.

These people deserve to be made an example of.

Re:Nail them to the wall (1)

Grantbridge (1377621) | about 9 months ago | (#45608361)

What are you talking about, they didn't steal anything. They just pressed "refresh" on the PayPay website a few thousands times a second to make the website unresponsive.

Re:Nail them to the wall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608411)

AFAIK they didn't steal money from someone, it simply slowed down paypal a little bit (it wasn't even offline apparently). Since most of the traffic came from botnets (not controlled by these guys) probably nothing would have changed if they didn't participate...

If only they have incorporated..... (3, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | about 9 months ago | (#45608301)

Then the 14 would only have to pay a small fine and admit no wrongdoing. Really, what they should have done was form their own bank if they wanted to steal money. I mean, look at Paypal, and they aren't even a bank!

Where's the justice? (1)

wispoftow (653759) | about 9 months ago | (#45608347)

I have no problem with throwing the book at these folks should they be found guilty. I doubt that these IP addresses corresponded to computers that were the personal property of the defendants.

My problem is that the government seems to fail to apply justice equally: when corporations screw the consumers, why aren't they busting up rocks?

spon6e (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608431)

How many times am I allowed to access a website (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45608603)

before I'll go to jail? What If I just show up on paypap.com some day and get dragged into something like this?

Hypocrite (1)

SYSS Mouse (694626) | about 9 months ago | (#45608795)

Omidyar says that as someone "deeply committed to government transparency, press freedoms and free expression, these issues hit close to home."

Remember that it was the permanent restriction of Wikileaks account that triggered the Anonymous attack in the first place.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>