Botnets are bad, m'kay?
The charge offense for Ryan Cleary:
Includes two connected with botnets. It may have been him, it may have been someone else, or the DDoS may have been launched by other means. We won't know until the case comes to trial. Regardless of this, let me underline one important point.
BOTNETS ARE EVIL.
Most hacking is attacks by LulzSec, Anom, TeamPoison (parties A) against big corporations and government agencies: your Sonys and SOCAs (parties B). It's not good, but you expect parties B to have well compensated people to protect their systems. They should be expected to handle themselves. It's not like they're not short of means for counter-attacking.
The problem with botnets is that the harvest the compromised computers of parties C0, C1, C2 and so on. And who are these people? Mums and dads, grannies who only use the computer to Skype to their relatives in Canada, that sort of thing. Many don't have the technical know-how to understand why their machines are engaged in denial of service attacks against the Presidential website of Brazil. Hacking is not good, but compromising innocent people's PCs to engage in criminal actions is another level of bad.
The other problem is that if the botnet's creator(s) get arrested, there are plenty of other bottomfeeders who are willing to take the botnet over, like Viagra spammers.
I'll say it once, and I'll say it again. Botnets are bad, m'kay?