×

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!

CNN Misrepresenting etoy vs. etoys Battle?

Hemos posted more than 14 years ago | from the battle-of-domain-names dept.

The Internet 200

J Hotch writes "Check out CNN's story: eToys attacks show need for strong Web defenses. Check out this frighteningly inaccurate description of the conflict: "Online retailer eToys has taken legal steps to prevent a Swiss art group from using the domain name etoy.com." This makes it sound like etoy.com was trying to muscle in on etoys.com. They don't mention that etoy.com was registered years before etoys.com was even a twinkle in some business-major's eye. Unfortunately, they are just using the denial-of-service attacks on etoys.com as a springboard into a web security article. "

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

200 comments

Yet they link to a better article... (2)

Eccles (932) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455775)

They do have a link on that very page to an idg.net article which goes into more detail about etoy and etoys, including mentioning that etoy.com was around for a year before etoys.com opened. Guess they don't fol,low their own links either...

Anybody have a CNN response address? (1)

handorf (29768) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455776)

I didn't see one when I read the article (and I was just about to post it to /. too. :-) )

I just feel they should be sure and point out who is the original aggressor here. DoS attacks are NOT how you deal with this kind of issue, but it doesn't seem like Big Business is going to leave the little guy with any other choices.

Stupid People Strike Again.

Wha? (2)

Myddrin (54596) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455777)

This article is about RTMark's DoS attacks on etoys.com, not about the legal battle.

Of course it makes RTMark look bad, the way they are behaving is quite childish. They would do better to be raising money to help etoy.com's legal battle. Or informing the public about what is going on. What they are doing now is just going to hurt etoy.com and others in the same situation by raising hostility in the corporate world.

Inside Info (1)

Cloudboy (118737) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455778)

The article states that Etoys suffered only a 2% loss to DoS attacks. Anychances anyone knows someone on the inside (or can get info) about more realistic figures. I would be very curious to know actual stats. Also note that Etoys had not made any comments until their peak sales are slowing.

Since when (1)

schloggie (110555) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455780)

do members of the press have a responsibility to check facts.

Monkey see, monkey do. Monkey hear, monkey say.

Let's just /. them (3)

lethe (29381) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455781)

Instead of arguing over the ethics of DoS attacks, why don't all of us just go and visit etoys.com. (let's see how ready they are to handle the onslaught of this community)

IP address (2)

Imperator (17614) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455782)

Quoth the article:
The group's Web site made available information, such as eToys' IP address, that would give attackers helpful ammunition to shoot eToys down.

Why do so many people not understand that IP addresses are not magic? Really, how hard is it to find the IP address that corresponds to etoys.com? If script kiddies can't figure it out, it's their ignorance.

Double standard? (2)

Linuk (28646) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455783)

Check out this frighteningly inaccurate description of the conflict

While you're at it, check out this story on /. where someone says CNN is misrepresenting the facts, but neglects to provide any background or sources for "the real story". If you want to hold CNN to a high standard, fine, but don't forget to uphold that standard yourself.

Slashdot misrepresents a CNN article (1)

Dj (224) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455785)

Or they were writing about web security and not about etoy vs etoys. They did not misrepresent the case; they just didn't go into any detail on it. Etoys has taken action to prevent the use of etoy as a domain name. Really, if you want to be pedantic, the word should have been prohibit, but they aren't, as I said, writing about the dispute; just the effects of the dispute.

To be fair to CNN.. (5)

Masem (1171) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455786)

CNN's focus on this article is NOT etoy.com vs eToys.com. It's on how script kiddies can readily and easily cause a pure e-commerce vessle to sink if it's not well prepared.

Now, let the ranting begin:

1) The only time that I would ever advocate a DoS attack on a site is never. There is no reason to do so; sure, you might put it down for a while (etoys reported 98% instead of 100% reliability during the last few weeks), but if anything it could lead to worse things (see below). There are more effective ways to state your dislike for something.

2) CNN's not wrong; their article on the etoy/etoys things is truth. Just using a different set of words that seems to put etoys on the right side of the thing. Words are very powerful, but you can't blame CNN for misusing them.

3) I really don't like this idea of DoS attacks, especially in light of this article. Chain of events: All over e-commerce they read that a service can be put down because of DoS (they won't care why the DoS was initiated); Etoys says they have to use custom-built DoS prevention tricks to stop it; E-commerce security experts all up in arms on how to stop this; e-commerence management wonders how to easily stop it; e-commerce turns to US Government (using large bags of money) and asks them to stop it; US Government bans all TCPIP tools except port 80's. Ok, so the last one's going a bit far, but I don't doubt that this series of events can happen. Just as with the question of linking, overly long patent and trademarks, poor patents, and other junk, stuff like this only kills the net for anyone not involved in e-commerce, and even then, may take some lowend e-commerce sites down.

Moral of the story: PLEASE DONT BE A SCRIPT KIDDIE. :-P

That wasn't the only dodgy part. (2)

jd (1658) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455788)

There were all sorts of questionable parts to the article, such as the implication that etoy was in some way in coherts with the crackers.

The slant was very much one of "etoys are innocent, anyone who says otherwise is guilty", regardless of any details such as facts.

Mind you, there is that old adage of "never let facts get in the way of a good story". CNN is usually one of the more reputable of a rather poor bunch, but this really doesn't reflect well on them.

So, what are you waiting for? (2)

seebs (15766) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455789)

Get in there and post feedback, comment in the forums, and/or call CNN, and talk to them about what "hacker" means.

If they want to babble about crackers, fine, but they shouldn't be confusing two very different groups.

Standard Fare for CNN (1)

waldoj (8229) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455791)

This is pretty standard for CNN, unfortunately. Most everything in their "Insurgency on the Internet [cnn.com] " is fluff.

This looks very much as if they just sat down with eToys and wrote down everything that eToys said to write down. Further, RTMark [rtmark.com] doesn't really do much to make a case against eToys. (Though, to be fair, they may have tried, and CNN simply failed to insert that part.)

I guess this is symptomatic of the larger problem in media, in which nobody's willing to present a story with more than one side. The easiest side for CNN is to make eToys look like the good guys, and the evil hackers to be the bad guys.

I'm not sure that this can be turned around, at least not through CNN. Surely, though, we can get other news sources (Wired [wired.com] , of course) to do fair coverage of this. But CNN is part of a large group of media outlets that just aren't going to be representing the interests of a small political-arts-action group when their opponent is a large e-commerce business that advertises on their networks.

Well, what did you expect? (1)

Fruan (105302) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455792)

Of course a 'respected' news source is going to side with the toy distributer (intentionally or otherwise) at this time of year, and more so when it is against artists who are not beyond using nudity in their art, which no doubt translates to 'pornographer' in the mind of most people when talking about the Internet. [That was a long sentance. The management apologises.]

But really, you would hope that someone still believe in *investigative* journalism.

I would not buy from etoys. (1)

emil (695) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455793)

Obviously, I don't have all the facts (IANAL). However, from what I've learned from these articles, I won't purchase anything from etoys, and I will encourage others not to do so.

You do not have free license to be impolite just because you are a large company. A courteous exchange of links would have saved everyone a great deal of trouble.

Rediculous, and amusing.. (2)

Phizzy (56929) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455794)

This article is an obvious farse on what is going on. I think anyone who has any idea of what is going on here will immediately realize what hype-motivated trash journalism this really is. What kind of "hacking group" allows themselves to be interviewed by CNN, and mentioned by name? I think this is an article to laugh about, not to be concerned about..

especially this part :
Using another method, an attacker can send malformed packets that give routers, firewalls or switches a kind of network indigestion.

Now.. I've had routers give ME indigestion, but never the other way around.. maybe someone has found some way to make them feel my pain!

//Phizzy

Their IP address is now public, God help us all (2)

CoughDropAddict (40792) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455795)

The group's Web site made available information, such as eToys' IP address

What sickos. Who knows what these loonies will do next.

Re:Wha? (4)

Gurlia (110988) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455796)

That's the problem with freedom of speech (supporters? advocates? zealots?). Doing things like DoS against somebody's server just to "prove a point" will only hurt freedom more than help it, in the long run. We need "peaceful" protests -- not disruptive actions. Yes we have to fight for our freedom rights, but doing childish things like ping floods, etc., will only give a very bad image to people outside of our circle, and actually advance the cause of those who want to take away our freedom (they can point at us and say "look at this bunch of childish fanatics, don't listen to them.")

I guess this is a principle we should all learn: whether fighting for freedom of speech, advocating Linux, or whatever the noble cause may be. "Promoting" Linux by flaming MS doesn't do any good at all, as most of us know very well. Similarly, DoS'ing etoys.com just to "show them" we don't like their actions won't do much except confirm, in the minds of the unknowing, that we are just a bunch of fanatics that should be ignored. What we need is to protest in a non-disruptive way. If enough of us drop a (polite!) note to etoys.com or to a congressman or whoever's in the position to take action, or raise some legal funds, and take some other means of non-disruptive action against this trend, we might actually make an effect.

Remember, if we lower ourselves to the opponent's level, we lose. Unfortunately it only takes a small percentage of us to behave in a childish way and people jump to the conclusion we're all like that.

Right vs. Wrong (5)

humphrm (18130) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455797)

There are too many right vs. wrongs here, and nobody (except maybe /. and etoy themselves with their legal counter action) is addressing this properly.

I recieved one of RTMark's e-mails; they clearly got my e-mail address off of /. because I responded to the earlier story [slashdot.org] about this. So, since I piped in with support of etoy (my post included simply options of other toy retailers to use, and my angle was that these other options are actually cheaper than eToys)

So, let's see... RTMark takes it upon themselves to harvest my e-mail address, send me Spam, and tries to enlist the spam's recipients to engage in an illegal DOS attack against eToys -- and they're the good guys?

The news article may not have been complete, (gee, Slashdot's never done that...) but they did get it right: this is an illegal attack that does nothing except make legitimate advocates for etoy look bad.

article is from Network World (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455798)

Check out: http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=13177 There's also a place to leave feedback. Probably the best way to let them know how far off base they are...

Over sensational article (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455799)

This article seems be more about "hackers" (incorrect use again: I like to hack around a bit, but I don't do things like that) than anything else. It must be a slow news day or something as they've resorted to sensationalist stories with no real content.

Why run such a big article (it's at the top of their page with the main headlines) about "hackers" when all they've done is reduce the availability of the eToys' web site by a huge and crippling 2%!!!? These "hackers" have been fairly inaffective according to this article.

Bah!

c001, 17s 31337!! (1)

BMIComp (87596) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455800)

You know, what eToys did was really unfair... but these gay DoS attacks from this RFM guy aren't justified. If this guy didn't have a computer, he'd have a can of spray paint instead. He's just trying to get attention.

Re:Let's just /. them (1)

BMIComp (87596) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455801)

I wouldn't be suprised if theír lawsuit-hungry lawyers sued /. just for you posting that... =P

Corporate Spin Control (2)

Bitscape (7378) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455802)

It certainly has the appearence of an attempt to generate a bias from the ignorant public in favor of Etoys. If they can get people to buy into the "corporate = good; independent thought = bad" mindset early on, people will be much less likely to sympathize with etoy even when they do learn all the facts.

While the article is correct in what it does say, omitting important info about the case leaves people people with the implicit assumption that etoy, and by extension "art groups" and "Internet activists", are automatically untrustworthy.

What I wonder is whether CNN has some vested interest in seeing Etoys win (Do they receive advertising revenue? Do they own stock in the company?), or it could just be old fashioned promotion of the money-making-above-all-else doctrine.

Be Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455803)

What annoyed me about this article was the obvious cut-and-paste journalism she exhibited by carelessly throwing out a bunch of script kiddie buzzwords for effect. Did everyone read how RTMark gave out EToys' IP address?!?!
The nerve!

Here's her info:
Ellen Messmer
Senior Editor, Enterprise Applications

emessmer@nww.com
(202) 879-6752
Fax: (202) 347-2365

Network World
1331 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 505
Washington, DC 20004

Not responding to ping requests! (1)

CoughDropAddict (40792) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455804)

Etoys ping requests are timing out: I suppose these are the advanced "proprietary" defenses they're boasting?

How does one even disable that? I didn't realize it was a controllable behavior.

If you want to castigate CNN.com (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455805)

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/ [cnn.com]

Please, keep your letters calm, to the point, and refrain from exhibiting the lower reaches of your vocabulary.


Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:Since when (1)

mlesesky (81453) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455806)

They don't - all media control seems tied up in 5 large companies. The first amendment lets us have our conversation, but it does not force anyone to listen. I feel like the big media can and does force their ideals on people.

Another thought - why would a small group - other than p0rn0 or 'e-squatters' - want a letter off address? I think eToys should be more sensative.

About the 98% - I truely wonder how this is derived? In seconds of downtime?

Those crazy hackers at RTMark... (1)

Silver Paladin (18938) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455807)

"The group's Web site made available information, such as eToys' IP address, that would give attackers helpful ammunition to shoot eToys down."

Quick, somebody stop these guys... :)

I'm not particularly pro-DoS attacks, but given that the courts are incapable or unwilling to understand the dynamics of domain name disputes, it appears there's little recourse for etoy. eToys deserves everything they get.

Re:Oh no! They're using Linux! (3)

Rommel (33210) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455808)

A visit to netcraft tells me the following: www.etoys.com is running Etoys Web server 1.2 on Linux

No wonder they have such excellent availability!

not totally true... (1)

Oirad (19452) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455809)

I read the article as talking about RTM's attacks on etoys. <sarcasm> Which, btw, is really adult. </sarcasm> There are other ways to fight this battle. Etoys is in the wrong. After all, you don't see the government getting an injunction against whitehouse.com [whitehouse.com] , do you? And RTM's actions will just serve to possibly bring more calls for legislation here in the US, more than anything else.

<sarcasm> Thanks guys.</sarcasm>

etoy.com a bunch of script kiddies? (4)

HomerJ (11142) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455810)

That's the impression a got after reading the CNN atricle.

Not to mention they mention the "unix-based" Tribal Flood Network. As if they are trying to group anyone that uses a non-MS OS into the "script kiddie" catagory that trys to take down "legit" e-commerce sites like etoys.com.

Which makes me wonder if Ted Turner has some sort of interest in etoys.com. I've seen CNN spin the hell out of other stories that were against a Turner company. Turner uses CNN to promote all of his ideas. It's not called the Clinton News Netowrk for nothing.

Just my $.02, but NEVER rely on CNN when they put too much of a negative spin on one thing and positive spin on another in the same story. CNN projects it's financial and politcal ideas in it's "unbiased" stories more then any other news organization I've seen.

I know what really happened. Other news groups reported on what really happened. I take CNN at face value, so the story didn't really surprise me.

man... (1)

phi1o (89700) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455811)

They didn't have links to any of those utilities in their "related websites" section. Is that bad journalism or what?

Re:Double standard? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455812)

neglects to provide any background or sources for "the real story". Have you have not been following the story? /. Already covered that in a previous story.

Ah the irony of it all... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455813)

Slashdot posting a story about journalist integrity? The same site that will post almost any rumor as news? Hello?

Slashdot misrepresenting the misrepresentation? (2)

Chip Stillmore (16985) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455814)

I don't see anything wrong with this article. It states simply that etoys.com is "taking legal steps to prevent a Swiss art group from using the domain name etoy.com." They use that statement to lead into the relevant topic of a group launching DoS attacks against etoys.com. Within the scope of this particular article, who cares which site was there first? That's irrelevant. It's just simply stating a fact, nothing more. This fact (etoys.com disputing etoy.com) was the catalyst that started the DoS attacks against etoys.com. That is all the article is saying.

I don't see any problem whatsoever.

Furthermore, nowhere in this article does it say anything about who is at fault in the etoys.com - etoy.com issue. So, it does not lay any foundation, whatsoever, that could be used for any misrepresentation of any kind.

With that in mind, it's easy to see that the poster is obviously reading way too much into this one sentence.

I fail to even see how this story even made it up on Slashdot.

What a big surprise (1)

Psymurai (96871) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455815)

This shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone. We all know the media is clueless. But instead of just being upset about it, take the time to send feedback to CNN. [cnn.com] They'll never learn if we don't tell them.

Accurate but not balanced (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455816)

As with so many of Ted Turner's companies, the coverage by CNN is accurate, but is not balanced. The facts are correct, but other facts that would allow a reasonable decision to be made on the topic are just plain missing. Its sort of the old saw about the NY Times masthead: "All the news that fits we print."

Well.. (2)

FallLine (12211) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455817)

I mostly agree with you. However, the government banning all but tcp port 80 would not improve things significantly, because:

a) Most sites can already go to their upstream providers and make such requests, which would have largely the same effect.

b) Despite filtering everything else, I, and many others, could, (and have, to varying degrees) written programs to send TCP fragments (e.g., SIN, FIN, RST) at excessive rates. Furthermore, these types of attacks are, in many ways, more potent than a trivial ping attack against a reasonably configured site.

Re:Not responding to ping requests! (1)

ScumBiker (64143) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455818)

They've probably got their webserver sitting in a DMZ on their firewall. It's actually trivial to drop/reject ping requests from there. You can also do filtering on the router to not accept ICMP packets, yet HTTP will get through.



Dive Gear [divingdeals.com]

Re:Let's just /. them (3)

humphrm (18130) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455820)

I spoke to a former ISP employee, who shall remain nameless because he's also on Slashdot.

At it's peak, Slashdot would probably only add a few percentage points of volume to eToy's site. For your average, low-budget, low-availability server, this results in a temporary loss of responsiveness, AKA "Slashdot Effect."

For a redundant, possibly clustered dedicated site with fine-tuned web servers, this will have no perceivable impact at all.

CNN is a megaphone for etoys' propaganda (1)

Wansu (846) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455821)

This story looks like it was planted by etoys. I just don't see how anyone knowledgeable about current events could get it that wrong. As usual, there's no email address on the CNN site. They want you to fill out this form on their website which probably gets copied to /dev/null


Tools? (1)

shaunj (72350) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455822)

"Denial-of-service attacks can be launched using any of dozens of programs available in hacker chat forums and on the Web" Or they could simply use ping. Which is an essential network tool that comes with just about every operating system. There is no need to blame the "dozens of programs". Blame the ethics of the people doing the DoS's.

Contacting the author (3)

dblslash (36525) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455823)

This is the contact info for the author of the article. I've sent her an email with links to the Slashdot articles concerning the etoy/Etoys battle.
Please, no flames.

Ellen Messmer
Senior Editor, Enterprise Applications

emessmer@nww.com
(202) 879-6752
Fax: (202) 347-2365

Network World
1331 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 505
Washington, DC 20004

Nonviolent Protest (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455824)

I have chatted with my co-workers about this. They feel that since the legal case involve international entities, it might drag on for a long time. In the meantime, etoy.com will be shutdown pending ruling. We feel destructive hacking might not be good for the cause of helping etoy.com. As an admininstrator working for a network provider, we wish we could call everyone who has the control of the internet core router, pick a time and stop or drop routing for etoy.com traffic for an hour as a silent protest, and show the world we are united!!!

Re:To be fair to CNN.. (1)

Juggle (9908) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455825)

I agree with a lot of what you said but have a major problem with your second point.

Most of what you said about DOS attacks I agree with. Heck I'll agree to everything you said about DOS. But this:

>2) CNN's not wrong; their article on the > etoy/etoys things is truth. Just using a
> different set of words that seems to put etoys > on the right side of the thing. Words
> are very powerful, but you can't blame CNN for > misusing them.

I agree that different wording can and will change the appearance of who or what is in the wrong in any given situation. But I do blame CNN when they misuse words. Be it intentional or unintentional.

CNN is a news agency, the public expects them to present fair unbiased reporting on a wide variety of subjects. When CNN misuses words to take sides in an ongoing argument they abuse their power as the press. Because CNN is very infulential and has this power they must be carefull not to abuse it. It's basic good journalism.

However, this entire article was very "fluffly" IMHO. Very low S/N ratio and not aimed towards anyone with any kind of technical knowledge. Which IMHO makes it even more damaging in that it will infuence people who don't have enough background information to form their own fair beliefs.

Oh, well I guess I should just shut up and stick to my policy of disregarding anything even remotely technical that CNN tries to do.

etoy not the topic (2)

ajs (35943) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455826)

Woefully, CNN is just using a bit of razzle-dazzle by touching on a hot topic (domain name disputes) to get people to read an otherwise off-putting technical article. They do their integrity a disservice, here. However, there's also a lesson to be learned by the RTMarks of the world: Before you perform an act online terrorism, think about the light that your act will be framed in. Will you help your cause or harm it?

The net result is that now a lot of people think etoy is some cyber-squatting (what an unfortunate term) semi-terrorist bunch of geeks. Many will never even know that it had anything to do with art.

Re:Let's just /. them (1)

BeeShoo (42280) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455827)

Unless perhaps, you do as I just did, and go to this page: http://www.etoys.com/cgi-bin/email_etoys.cgi?state =email and send them a note telling them how much you despise what they're doing. Maybe it's not gonna put a dent in their server, but it will let them know that people (and potential customers) are opposed to their actions, and will not have anything to do with them as long as they persist. This is all about money, so let them know you'll speak with your wallet...

1st Law of Mass Media / How the Grinch Stole eToys (3)

Spud Zeppelin (13403) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455828)

The 1st Law of Mass Media is "Give the people what they want." It appears CNN is doing exactly that... after all, it is Christmas, and (by the way, this has nothing to do with my opinion on the subject [I support eToy], just my perception of how CNN is handling it):

  • Dr. Seuss' Grinch conspired to keep toys out of the hands of children using a dogsled. RTM is conspiring to do likewise (again, in the eyes of the public) using a DoS attack.
  • The Grinch lived on top of a mountain. eToy is based in Switzerland.
  • The Grinch didn't like Christmas because of the noise. eToy (again, popular perception) doesn't like the e-commerce.
  • The Grinch was a mean-spirited recluse. eToy is a group of free-spirited *gasp* performance artists, aligned with a group of *gasp* free-thinking H/CRackers.
  • The Grinch freely exploited his little dog, Max. RTM are freely exploiting the "zombie" machines they've compromised.

There may be other parallels, these were just readily apparent. Remember what ESR likes to talk about with regard to technology in the media: people only pay attention to tech stories with protagonists. In this case, they've got a protagonist (the Whos down at eToys) and a story that they more-or-less already know (or at least think they do)... what more could John Q. Public ask for?







This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.

Re:To be fair to CNN.. (2)

agaffin (28278) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455829)

Masem,

Thanks!

As you'll see from that article, it's originally from Network World, not CNN (hey, click on www.nwfusion.com/news/1999/1220eto ys.html [nwfusion.com] for both the article and our own links).

Our audience consists mainly of network managers at large companies, i.e., the kind of people who worry (or who should worry) about things like DoS attacks. If you keep reading the article, you'll see we used the etoys case as a hook on which to base a more general article on the issue.

-- Adam

Adam Gaffin
Online Editor, Network World

Anarchy (2)

FFFish (7567) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455830)

It strikes me that the Internet is the closest thing we have to an anarchy: a lack of centralized control, rule by consensus, and sometimes mob rule.

DoS attacks are the network equivalent to violence. They're intended to "wipe 'em out," as surely as a bullet to the head.

And put in those terms, it's downright scary. What we have are a bunch of self-righteous hoodlums who put their own *OPINION* of what's right and wrong well above the ability of others to continue to exist.

Yah, I'm using hyperbole. It's not really that extreme. No one is likely to die from this.

But the comparisons can be drawn, and perhaps indicate the biggest flaw with anarchic thought. Some right bastard is always gonna be more than willing to go to the extreme, rather than approach a solution from a non-violent direction.

Inneresting bit of thought, IMHO, anyway. :)

Hello Kettle... (3)

Rombuu (22914) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455831)

Man, I've got to write this date down in my diary. Slashdot complaining about someone else's accuracy in reporting. Next thing there will be a story about incorrect grammer or spelling on some site.

newsbites and "reporting" (1)

mackga (990) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455832)

Figures - CNN came up with the idea of 24hr headline news - perfect for the attention-challenged U.S. teevee watcher. Now something like this. While the stories do relate, it would have been far better to devote the bulk of the column to the background story to explain the lead-in. But, no, it's soooo much hipper to talk about l33t hax0rz because that's much easier to sensationalize. Reporting, yes, but not responsible.

Re:Wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455833)

who's 'we'?

eCrap.com (1)

plasmax (38521) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455834)

Why didn't etoy.com just sue eToys.com first? They should have known that some big ass American company would try to run them off the road.The whole situation is so galling and absurd. Why isn't eToys' email being stopped and its website shutdown? I would like to know who has the authority to shutdown a website in Switzerland anyway.
The whole nature of the web is way too American. Far from being an international phenom, the web is just an extension of Americana. Not a bad thing, except when American biz interests start to clash with the rest of the world.

Attn: moderator - score as a 5, my karma needs an upgrade !!!

Re:Anarchy (1)

FFFish (7567) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455835)

Er, of course, there are anarchists who envision this utopian world of cooperation between people, and are very down on the idea that some 'right bastards' might use force (violence/DoS) to get their way.

And then there are the anarchists who seem to desire a violent overthrow of government. They're likely to be the 'right bastards' the others are concerned about...

Re:Wha? (1)

slickwillie (34689) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455836)

"Or informing the public about what is going on."

Looks like it worked. I probably never would have heard about it if it wasn't posted here. How fqar do you think they would have gotten if they just issued a press release, or tried to get CNN to publish a clarification?

Not surprising, just annoying (3)

lyonsj (51249) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455838)

Honestly, it's not a huge surprise that CNN has posted a story that's worded this way. I mean, first of all, they probably get ad dollars from eToys.com. And second, what, did you think the mainstream press would defend some artsy-fartsy freak group, so offensive to blue-collar America? I mean, hello... etoy.com had the work "fuck" on their page! *gasp* Quick, someone get the smelling salts!

There are many, many things that annoyed me about this CNN article. Here's a short list:

1) They did not mention that etoy.com was registered two YEARS before eToys.com. The wording makes it sound like etoy.com was just playing off the popularity of eToys.com, which is not the case.

2) CRACKERS, not HACKERS! For crying out loud! How many times can they get this wrong? Isn't there something we could do to get these reporters a clue? crackers Crackers CRACKERS!

3) OK, so someone posted eToys.com's IP address on the web. Oh nooo, Mr. Bill! God FORBID anyone should do that! As we all know, nameservers don't do that kind of thing every day. IPs are not meant to be seen by the general public! All them thar numbers and dots, those could mean *anything*!

Oh, and as for those "proprietary" defenses being used by eToys: why am I not surprised that these people would take from the Open Source community and then not even be willing to disclose new (if they are new) ways of warding off attackers? Yeah, OK, I understand that this might make them more vulnerable, but then again.... well, we all know the good arguments for sharing information, so I won't rehash those.

All in all, it's no more than I expected from CNN - but I would like to see the bar raised on these types of "mainstream technical" articles.

Re:IP address (1)

mdvkng (59799) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455840)

Yah! I too thought that was the most clueless statement in the article.

Name: etoys.com
Address: 204.71.184.182

Name: www.etoys.com
Address: 204.71.184.166

Gee that was hard!

-M

Re:To be fair to CNN.. (2)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455841)

Adam,

It would have been more representational to have provided a little more context on the issue. While I vehemently disagree with what the crackers and script kiddies are doing, this is clearly a problem which etoys.com brought upon themselves with their unwarrented attack on etoy.com . Network managers at large company, who should be worrying about such things, need to know the context lest they, or their legal departments, step into the same wasps' nests.

What the News is All About (4)

FFFish (7567) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455843)

The news does not exist to inform you.

It exists to sell your eyeballs to advertisers.

The more eyeballs, the more dollars revenue.

Facts just scare the audience away.

Adopt this cynical (and realistic) understanding of the news media, and it'll serve you well.

Contact the author? (2)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455845)

I believe that the correct contact information for the person who wrote the article is at "http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=13177".

Be polite, people - it IS possible to be firm but polite, and your recipient will be more likely to listen to you instead of tuning you out.

Re:Slashdot misrepresenting the misrepresentation? (2)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455846)

It's not in what they said it, it's in how it was presented. The title to the CNN article sets the tone for the whole article as the results of an "attack" (a BadThing(tm)) and anyone mentioned is therefor mentally related and thus "attackers" except for the poor-defensless-major-US-corporation-which-was-not -seriously-affected-by-the-DOS-attack.

The solution to this type of article is the same as the solution to _any_ sort of article like this - MORE REGULAR PEOPLE NEED TO BE INVOLVED!

The more "normal" people who contact x news agency, the greater the change in how x news agency will report the story. This is true of almost any news agency and almost any news story.

Of course it's bad reporting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455847)

The few rare times I've had any firsthand knowledge of a story reported in any mainstream media, the facts and details and emphasis have been so far off base it was comical. And it is always even worse when there's any kind of technology involved. Not long ago, I read a story about how some little company here in Denver invented XML. As far as I'm concerned, I fully expect crappy reporting, and I fully expect news media to print press releases as news stories. I don't know that there is a legitimate way to explain the story to Joe User and Jane Stocktrader. What I do know is that Etoys' stock is falling, and I suspect it's got more than a little to do with FUD about the evil cracking threats and the fact that domain names are fragile things that can be shut down with little or no notice, over even the slightest or most unfounded disagreement.

Re:Wha? (2)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455848)

> That's the problem with freedom of speech
> (supporters? advocates? zealots?). Doing things
> like DoS against somebody's server just to
> "prove a point" will only hurt freedom more than
> help it, in the long run.

The problem is a very vocal minority can ruin
things for a silent majority. It happens all the
time.

Look at Seattle. A small group, perhaps of 15
people...certainly less than 1/2 of 1% of all the
people at the protest, were violent. They broke
store windows and did other violent things. This
made the entire body of protestors look bad.

Then again...some could argue that it may have
been a desired effect...there was an Anarchist
Doctrine at the turn of the century whereby places
would be bombed etc in an effort to make the
government over-react in response - the end result
being resentment towards the government response
(looked at in that light...it worked brilliently
for an excellent movie that adresses this...see
The Seige where Denzel Washington says "They Have
already won")

In any case...it is almost always a minority who
get noticed. In this case, since there is no
resonse from the other side really (other than
pointing out his childish antics) it makes the
whole of etoy supporters look like a bunch of
snotty kids.

Those who really advocate "Free Speach" would
recognize that etoys.com has a right to their
free speach and would attempt to speak louder
rather than annoy and silence them. (much the
reasoning behind the ACLU regularly defending the
Ku Klux Klan in court when they are not allowed by
cities to hold parades,...then turning around and
fighting for the rights of minorites in other
cases)

Stumbled? (1)

mdvkng (59799) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455849)

From the Domain bullying link at IDG.

> ... eToys filed its lawsuit after several customers said they stumbled on Etoy site
> and were offended by some of its material ...

Geez!

Since when is the site's owner/operator responsible for the mistakes and/or stupidity of the users?

If you stumble, it's your own fault. Nobody tripped you.

-M

Re:Slashdot misrepresenting the misrepresentation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455850)

You're right.

I do think its a newsworthy article, but because etoy should be trying to get etoys to stop using their domain name. After all, etoy was there first.

Re:Let's just /. them (1)

Sabby (1759) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455852)

Oh, and if you can, distribute the email address and the URL to the article about what happened to your *friends and family* (and no one above and beyond that). I've told my family about it, and hopefully they'll understand that when my family all complains, my friends all complain, and that they've lost our dollars (which they have, since last year, my wife bought some things from there) they may change their mind.

Anyone remember the www.gumby.org and the www.ajax.org domain disputes. (both of which resolved with the companies retracting their lawsuits). I don't think either one ended with a DoS or anything of the sort. (And Ajax.Org was a site with contents which the media would have LOVED to hear about a DoS from.)

Re:Let's just /. them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455853)

And how much were you planning on spending at eToys before you heard about etoy, anyway?

Their wallet won't give a damn if a bunch of hackers go from spending $0 because they don't buy toys to $0 because they're in a domain name fight.

CNN doesn't write the content (2)

Twid (67847) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455854)

CNN didn't write the article, so all the CNN conspiracy theorists can calm down. CNN "outsources" their technical content to IDG.NET. Ellen Messmer, the author, is a writer for Network World, you can contact her at:

Ellen Messmer
Senior Editor, Enterprise Applications
emessmer@nww.com
(202) 879-6752
Fax: (202) 347-2365

Network World
1331 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 505
Washington, DC 20004

Personally, I find this to be typical sloppy trade rag journalism. I don't think IDG has an private agenda (like the microsoft loving ZDNET). They just slapped a story together and pushed it out without understanding all the background.

A good solution would be to educate Ms. Messmer is a calm, controlled manner, but somehow I don't see that happening with the /. crowd. The torches are lit, the pitchforks are out, and everyone is all worked up. /. itself pubishes poorly researched stories weekly, and it doesn't ignite this sort of flaming. (Oh wait, it does! I take that back 8-) )


-Twid

Re:Slashdot misrepresents a CNN article (1)

chrystoph (89878) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455855)

I generally don't argue over semantics, but CNN did misrepresent the case. Lying by omission is still lying. If they had presented all of the facts (e.g. good journalism), the article would not be causing the flair that it is. CNN appears to intentionally be linking the illegal activities to E-Toy by association.

While I understand that the gist of the CNN article is cyber-terrorism, slandering the reputation of their example is also a form of attack. They will, however, probably get away with it under cover of being a news organization.
-------------------------

Script kiddies - a national resource (2)

Signal 11 (7608) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455856)

Hey, you can bash the l335 13 year old kids out there breaking into systems, but who's fault is it if you leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and leave it unattended while you go shopping all day? Insurance companies will tell you you didn't make a reasonable effort to prevent it, hence you can't collect. Your fault. If they catch the criminal, great - you get your car back. If not, tough.

There's another spin I want to put on this - and that is that these script kiddies are performing an invaluable job - exposing security holes without doing *too much* damage. What's worse - a defaced webpage (graffiti) or industrial espionage. Which method would you like to have done to your web server? I prefer the former - atleast I know when it happened, and it's easy to clean up.

Microsoft would never have released any security patches to SMB filesharing, or the SAM database "syskey" in SP6a or a plethora of other fixes if it wasn't for the pervasiveness of these "script kiddies". Conventional methods of writing to Microsoft failed - read any bugtraq posting about M$ and it'll go something like this: "I wrote to them a month ago and never heard anything, so I'm posting this really easy way to compromise any M$ OS to the public. Thanks Microsoft.

I'm reminded of a quote from Southpark: "Blame Canada! Blame Canada!" It's true, a hundred times over. We'll just shovel the blame around - it's the script kiddies fault (our root password was aadvark, but that's not OUR fault!) - it's the governments fault - it's Microsoft's fault... how about "It's your fault." They point the finger at the admin, the admin points the finger at the vendor, and all the user gets is the finger. Thank god for script kiddies - they crack security enough to get it fixed, and they have the intelligence of lobotomized flatworms - ie: they can't do much real damage. Look at it another way: if they really were a threat, don't you think the FBI would be more active in trying to catch them?

Re:To be fair to CNN.. (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455857)

re: "As you'll see from that article, it's originally from Network World, not CNN (hey, click on www.nwfusion.com/news/1999/1220eto ys.html for both the article and our own links). "

I wouldn't call attention to that if I worked for them. But maybe you were being inflamatory on purpose (probably gets you extra clicks).

It doesn't matter what the point of your article was, in your mind. If you knowingly throw a biased viewpoint into an news article, then you are being unprofessionally irresponsible.

Re:That wasn't the only dodgy part. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455858)

Anyone who associates with RTMark voluntarily is definitely not innocent. They may be guilty of crimes that you don't think should be crimes, but they're definitely guilty.

Re:Not surprising, just annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455859)

> reporters a clue? crackers Crackers CRACKERS

Would you like some cheese with your crackers and whine?

Re:Wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455860)

You do have some very good arguments, but there is one thing...RTMark is actively calling for the destruction of etoys, not simply trying to prove a point (at least that's how I read it.) I did send in a polite letter, and I will happily add my voice to the choir of dissent in any way that doesn't make me out to be an idiot or loon, but I do have some serious doubts that etoys will decide that they really have no business trying to squash anything out there that they don't like, and drop suit out of the goodness of their hearts. By the time they have their way it won't matter how many letters we send, etoy will be gone forever, a precedent will be set and you may have to be on the lookout for powerful corporations hawking zots and looking at your domain name...

On the bright side though, I think once people visit the link on CNN's site to RTMark and check out some of the other project they have going there will be no confusing them with any other person or group out there :-)

Re:Inside Info (1)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455861)

2% downtime over the course of a week is over three hours. If your system is down 9:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday that's a 76% uptime.

I hate 'uptime' figures.

Pleeeeze? (4)

Kaa (21510) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455862)

We need "peaceful" protests -- not disruptive actions. Yes we have to fight for our freedom rights, but doing childish things like ping floods, etc., will only give a very bad image to people outside of our circle, and actually advance the cause of those who want to take away our freedom ...[snip]... What we need is to protest in a non-disruptive way.

I am usually not in favor of incitement to riots, but this position goes a bit too far the other way. Peaceful and non-disruptive protests make sense only when the imbalance of power between the two sides isn't too great. If your position on the totem pole is several feet below its bottom, then all the non-disruptive protests in the world aren't going to do you and your cause any good. At best you'll politely told to fuck off and not bother important gentlemen busy with their important matters.

The proper criterion for protest is not how disruptive it is, but rather how effective it is in achieving its aims. Sometimes the best way is to be very, very polite. Other times, being polite is useless but being obnoxious and irritating works wonders. It all depends.

I am not in favor of ping-flooding etoys' servers -- this attack is ineffective and is not likely to make etoys see the light. The management will just tell their tech people to fix it, and fix it they will, it's not hard at all. On the other hand, I am also not in favor of wringing one's hand lamenting the horrible state of affairs and writing whiny letters to congresscritters. If you want to do something, do something effective instead of pissing in the wind.

Kaa

Re:Anybody have a CNN response address? (1)

wolfgang_spangler (40539) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455863)

e-mail Ellen Messmer Directly: emessmer@nww.com
Of course be polite...

Although she didn't go into detail and explain more about the etoy vs etoys battle she DID give the impression that etoy was the bad guys....


That's because CNN is sensationalist (2)

dattaway (3088) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455864)

I have to watch CNN at work and the way they report makes me sick. Rather than giving references, they cave in to cheasy and dubious leads: "Sources say..." "The FBI says..." "Officials report..." That's the only thing that seperates it and the daytime talk shows.

When is CNN going to do any actual reporting, rather than following up on press releases by contacting the obviously biased three letter agencies? Many stories I have seen where I knew some background, they have screwed up. There are exceptions, where adventurous reporters really mingled with the communities involved. But that's rare. I get to see CNN Headline News rehash what looks like government and sponsor approved spineless news.

Further, they have to sensationalize on any blood and guts violence and terrorist related thing and hype it up like the world is going to blow at midnight, December 31st.

Maybe some good old fashioned news reporting and none of their constant speculative biased editorials would be a welcome change. Why don't they pick up local news events from city television stations that are always interesting? Why do we have to watch them stir up the hornet's nest on breaking problems and take the side who has the biggest media relations staff? They keep on reporting on events like compost that doesn't quite yet have a chance of into anything fruitful while they take sides.

At the risk of looking like a script kiddie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455865)

when I checked it was 204.71.184.166.

Moral: Its easy to find - its not a secret. Spinning articles is lying.

Re:Script kiddies - a national resource (1)

Col. Panic (90528) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455866)

these script kiddies are performing an invaluable job - exposing security holes without doing *too much* damage

I don't know if I can go along with that. Script kiddies really aren't exposing security holes, just launching DoS attacks, which does nothing for determining how well a site is locked down.

Now if you said *crackers* are a valuable resource for that reason I would agree, but cracking takes considerably more skill than using premade utilities to throw around TCP fragments.

Slashdot Overreporting-Go ahead, moderate down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455867)

Their was a posting last week or 2 weeks agon on Slashdot about etoys.com versus etoy.com. Now this. I think this conflict was reportable. At this point, Slashdot is obsessing on reportable topics (ie. old news and repeated news). If Slashdot is to remain an icon of technology news on the Internet, then perhaps it's editors need to refocus their posting strategy.

Fire with Fire... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455868)

So, if NSI will suspend a domain name in dispute, why doesn't etoy.com file against etoys.com, then they both get shut down until the suit is resolved? Fair is fair.

Re:newsbites and "reporting" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455869)

And it's a lot easier to talk about "patents on breathing" than engage in a serious discussion of how to reform current patent practices and whether or not software patents might actually have a legitimate spot in industry, as well. CNN is merely living up to Slashdot's high standard of integrity and balance.

Re:Right vs. Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1455870)

This is not a commercial message. Remove by writing mailto:remove@rtmark.com?subject=rm-f@linuxstart.c om">rm-f@linuxstart.com December 12, 1999 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEW INTERNET "GAME" DESIGNED TO DESTROY ETOYS.COM Stock plunge must be accelerated, groups say Contacts: mailto:etoyfund@rtmark.com">etoyfund@rtmark.com, mailto:toby@etoys.com">toby@etoys.com More information: http://rtmark.com/etoy/ http://rtmark.com/etoypress.html http://rtmark.com/sitin.html RTMark has joined the growing torrent of outrage, sometimes violent in tone, against Internet toy giant eToys (http://rtmark.com/etoypress.html) by helping create and distribute what RTMark calls "a new toy": a multi-user Internet game whose goal is to damage (or possibly even destroy) the company. The game, which aims to punish eToys for shutting down prominent Internet art group etoy's domain (see http://rtmark.com/etoypress.html for more information), takes the form of an RTMark "mutual fund," or list of sabotage projects (http://rtmark.com/etoy/). All projects in the "etoy Fund," some of which have already been financed, aim to lower the company's stock market value as much as possible. The site also includes pages that will help visitors to cripple the eToys servers during the ten days leading to Christmas (http://rtmark.com/sitin.html), pages providing detailed financial information about the company, and a page of links to the dozen or so other groups calling for eToys' downfall. Since November 29, when eToys lawyers shut down the art group's domain and news of the massive and violent-toned reaction began to spread, huge sellouts (including a 2.5-million-share sale by Moore Capital Management, Inc.) have caused eToys stock to fall from $67/share to $45/share, or nearly 33%; before November 29 eToys stock had been rising. RTMark's new projects group aims to systematically capitalize on and accelerate the eToys share fall. "The etoy Fund projects are a game the whole world can play," said RTMark spokesperson Ernest Lucha. "Many of the projects--boycotts, pickets, e-mail campaigns--can be played by anyone, while other projects--countersuing eToys, disturbing the eToys servers, etc.--require specialized work. There's something for everyone, and we know we can easily count on 10,000 players to start with." There's also something for hackers, who are normally apolitical but have by and large taken eToys' attack on etoy as an attack on themselves. "eToys is trying to take advantage of a legal situation in which there's basically no protection against corporations, whether you're an artist, an activist, or just someone in the wrong place at the wrong time," said a hacker who identifies himself as "Code Blue." "But they're relying a bit too much on the legal. They're saying f*ck you to everything that etoy stands for, and that's like spraying tear gas all over the entire hacking community." "This game is much more exciting than any other computer game, because you have a real-world bad guy to fight," said RTMark spokesperson Lucha. "We think it's especially exciting that the court date [December 27, at which the final fate of etoy.com will be decided] falls so close to Christmas," said Richard Zach, a graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley who has closely followed the dispute since the beginning. "The holiday season is a time of giving, but since eToys decided to take, we're making an example of them during their busiest season. Christmas won't be the end of the game, but it's an important first milestone." It's not just about etoy, nor about art or hacking, according to Lucha: the etoy Fund and directly hostile efforts like it could help lead to a new balance of power between citizens and big business. "Why should global culture be dominated by business? The net is a playing field that could help to create, through law, a worldwide balance of power that just doesn't exist now." The anger against eToys is not likely to dissipate soon, even with a favorable outcome to the case (i.e. the survival of etoy.com), according to Lucha. "eToys says etoy.com was hurting sales by disturbing those who stumble upon it. Well, eToys' domain is disturbing people who want to see great internet art but stumble upon eToys instead, and so why not say eToys shouldn't exist? Why should financial might make right? If they want to play by barbaric rules, we will too." "eToys feels comfortable destroying art for the benefit of its business, so all the players of this game can feel great destroying eToys--for the benefit of art," said Lucha. OTHER ATTACKS RTMark and its "etoy Fund" collaborators are only one group among dozens to mount digital and real-world attacks against eToys in time for Christmas. Two other anti-eToys "products," soon to be announced independently, come from groups of programmers who have, like the hackers, taken eToys' action as a personal affront. One such group is nearly finished with an "action entertainment product" inspired by some of etoy's well-known pieces (such as the "digital hijack," which won Ars Electronica's most prestigious award, and $7,375, in 1996; see the etoy site, still available at http://146.228.204.72:8080/, for more information). The "product," which will shortly be available at http://www.toywar.com, "will enable any net user to directly attack eToys.com," according to one of the programmers involved in its development. Another anti-eToys tool that has already been deployed and will be announced within the next several days, according to a source within the above-mentioned group, is a program that generates fraudulent web page accesses ("hits") disguised to look like those of Internet shoppers coming from numerous, randomly-chosen locations. The aim of the tool is to make the financial valuation of eToys.com, which depends heavily on web access counts, unreliable. This uncertainty, which should become more evident in the days to come, should increasingly make investors even more skittish about investing in the company, according to the source. eToys is the third largest e-business on the Internet; etoy.com, which eToys lawyers have shut down, is the domain synonymous with the oldest, best-known, and most influential Internet art group, etoy. etoy has owned etoy.com since 1995, before eToys existed, and two years before eToys registered its own URL. etoy.com has never made any reference to eToys. See http://rtmark.com/etoypress.html for more information. RTMark, which is in no way associated with etoy, aims to publicize the widespread corporate abuse of democratic institutions like courts and elections. To this end it solicits and distributes funding for "sabotage projects"; the groups of such projects are called "mutual funds" in order to call attention to one way in which large numbers of people come to identify corporate needs as their own. RTMark projects do not normally target specific companies; the etoy Fund projects are an exception. RTMark is no stranger to the hot topic of domain-name control. The World Trade Organization's press release about http://gatt.org, accusing RTMark of "illegal practices" in publishing information critical of the WTO at that site, merely brought the WTO ridicule from the press (http://rtmark.com/gatt.html); George W. Bush's and Microsoft's legal attacks on GWBush.com (http://rtmark.com/bush.html) and MicrosoftEdu.com (http://rtmark.com/allpress.html#mse) failed to affect the domains. See also http://rtmark.com/othersites.html for more on this issue. # 30 # This is not a commercial message. Remove by writing mailto:remove@rtmark.com">remove@rtmark.com?subjec t=rm-f@linuxstart.com">rm-f@linuxstart.c om If you have received multiple copies of this notice and wish to receive only one, please remove as above all address versions but one.

Re:IP address (1)

toast0 (63707) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455871)

oh my god
you posted that in a public forum?
the horror

I feel i must post this in retaliation :)
Name: slashdot.org
Addresses: 209.207.224.42, 209.207.224.40, 209.207.224.41
Aliases: www.slashdot.org

This won't help etoy at all (1)

ParanoidZombie (39759) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455873)

I know this is kinder negative but even tho RTMarks is not part of etoy they are goona be linked somehow by the mainstream media:o(

There was a story on HNN about this guy and his promise to do this a wee while back
http://www.hackernews.com/arch.html?121599

Is ETOY.COM secretly owned by ETOYS.COM? (2)

stil (112175) | more than 14 years ago | (#1455874)

Having noticed the original article on cnn.com, I immediately went to /. to report the link. Of course, /. being /., there was already a link up to the article, along with a zillion replies.

I got to thinking - if I were a clever executive at etoys.com who wanted to pump up the publicity for the site, especially during the holiday season, what would be the most efficient resource to use for this purpose?

Then it hit me - What is the most potent energy source in the universe? Why, the unchecked ire of righteous net.rogues, of course! All that would be needed to harness such energy would be a minor slight, preferably one related to online freedoms.

A plan is thus hatched - create a decoy company, a "little guy". Abuse the decoy company by throwing around monetary weight. When the decoy goes down for the count, the net.rogues are sure to reach a hand into the ring for a tag, and come in blazing. The media being what it is, it won't be able to resist reporting on the scoundrels and whatever retalitory actions they take.

Result? My company comes out the hero, having been abused by those evil C^HHackers, and gets a ton of free press to boot, right around our most profitable time.

Or maybe not.

:)

stil
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...