7 posts • joined 26 Jun 2010
Disregard previous reply, he caved in to the prosecutions pressure after being locked up for over a year and facing several other trails if he did manage to win.
I know that there is absolutely 0 reported evidence against the supposed(no conviction yet) antisec member jeremy hammond.
From what I can tell he is being accused of having a life very similar to what the anarchaos fellow described to be his life and for disconnecting at approximately the same times. This information was widely available to several 1000 hackers so I have to question in how far that counts as evidence.
He's an american though so he'll be looking at 30 years to life when convicted.
Re: Because *only* a nation state could run PHP scripts.
The datacenter I'm hosted at gets ddosed with about 20Gbit every day pretty much all day. It peaks at about 60Gbit once a month or so(my sysadmin also works for the datacenter from time to time so we get access to all kinds of fun statistics). I never did find out who is behind it... guess its Iran.
I always liked to imagine banks have a better setup then I have but my fairly cheap plan makes it so I don't notice a thing from the ddos except during the 60Gbit peaks or when they target me specifically with such an amount instead of for some reason spreading the attack across several random servers in the datacenter(although in that case its the upstream provider nullrouting my ip's instead of letting the datacenters firewall farm deal with it).
Re: But normally the protesters WANT to protest...
I would be willing to pay a small amount of money to see a flash animation depicting exactly this.
It is worth pointing out that some of the highest profile anonymous attacks ware mostly individuals and not botnets. Those that got arrested and convicted for their participation in a ddos attack ware the ones that did it from their home network where 1 IP was 1 individual.
There was very little chance of catching those that used a botnet, so if this becomes a law or not it will never stop botnets.
But it will in my opinion give a voice to those that are generally upset about something without going to jail instead of only giving a voice to those that are willing to get arrested or those smart enough to cheat.
I'm for it..
Assuming each IP == 1 person intentionally taking part than I am totally for this type of thing. Even if its automated.
To me automating it is the same as bringing a chair to a sit in. Even while protesting there is no reason you can't be comfortable. I also think that in most cases it is okay to totally disrupt a place of business. When you go on strike do you allow anyone to enter your factory?(although I'm sure many of you will disagree)
Using a botnet however would be very wrong, and is in itself illegal even if the botnet isn't used for ddos.(breaking into computers and all that)
Just as with normal strikes I imagine that if this ware to ever become law there would of course be some constraints. For instance: blocking a hospital(or its online equivalent of ddosing emergency services) is generally frowned upon.
Its probably also worth mentioning that pre 2000 this was totally legal (or at the very least never went to court, floodnet comes to mind. The old documentary "hackers in wonderland" makes some nice references to it.)
Full disclosure: My datacenter gets hit with a 20Gbit ddos pretty much every day all day. About once a month it peaks to 60Gbit for a short while and I'll have some connectivity problems but that never lasts very long. But this is from one or two individuals with a botnet, not a protest. So despite feeling the effects of this sort of thing on a daily basis I still approve of ddos as a form of protest.
I'm all for 'coordinated vulnerability disclosure' and giving software makers plenty of time to fix their stuff but I don't believe anyone should be forced to do so.
If someone finds a vulnerability in software they should have the right to do with it whatever they want, whether they inform the company, keep it for themselves, make it public or sell it for profit.
Motives like personal beliefs, financial gain, hate for the vuln company or simply wanting to screw over a couple of thousand people should not matter.
It was after all them who found it, not the people with full access to the code who ware supposed to prevent these things and get payed to do so.
All this 'debate' on the subject just looks like companies trying to find ways to make it illegal to point out when they have failed until the issue has been forgotten and is no longer relevant.
And lets face it... the internet without vulnerable people? Wheres the fun in that? I'd have to get my viagra spam some ware else, I just can't imagine starting my day without reading 10 emails telling me how I need larger genitalia.
internet tough guy
If legal actions fail this guy deserves some internet justice.
Time to call aquaman!
- One HUNDRED FAMOUS LADIES exposed NUDE online
- Google flushes out users of old browsers by serving up CLUNKY, AGED version of search
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers