Actually, that's still illegal. I can't be sure of where you're from, but barring entry to a building or facility as an act of protest is not covered under the First Amendment in the US. As soon as you obstruct the entrance to a facility, you no longer fall under the protection of "peaceful protest" in US law, as you are now infringing upon the rights of others.RvLeshrac said:
Anonymous Members Arrested for Performing DDOS Attacks
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I used to be one of those guys, but some of us grow up, and I don't see a point in it any more, but at least I didn't act like an idiot when I did this stuff, and these guys do deserve to get caught, not only for being stupid about not covering there tracks but it seems that there is something more to it as to why they got caughtmonkey jesus said:
I miss the old Anonymous, they actually used to be effective and they made 4chan somewhat interesting. Now it's just crappy copypastas and porn.
Probably going to anger Anon by saying this, but they really should just quit now; it's nothing like it used to be, the inhabitants are most likely squeaky voiced 13 year olds, and they can barely do anything anymore...
I'm happy these 5 got caught, help trim the herd...wonder if there's any old members left?
Probably going to anger Anon by saying this, but they really should just quit now; it's nothing like it used to be, the inhabitants are most likely squeaky voiced 13 year olds, and they can barely do anything anymore...
I'm happy these 5 got caught, help trim the herd...wonder if there's any old members left?
You can't actually glue the door shut, but you CAN make things more difficult for people who want to shop there. There's a fine line - but Woot!'s BoCs prove that yes, you *CAN* conduct business even when people are clogging your tubes.PlaidHatter said:
Uh, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but that's what 4chan has *ALWAYS* consisted of, in major part. There's a reason they do this: People under 18 have absolutely *no* say in how the country is run, nor do they have any power to influence organisations such as the CoS.JemothSkarii said:
I'm not entirely sure how much history or politics you know. You seem to have a fairly loose line you've drawn between what is legal and what you think should be legal. Even then, you seem to only be looking at this from the angle of vandalism rather than speech. Let's look at this as an act of speech instead for a moment.RvLeshrac said:
As far as the US is concerned, there's still legal precedence set by Feiner v. New York (1951) in the Supreme Court, where a man was arrested for "inciting a breach of the peace" while soapboxing. I'm no lawyer, but here's a pretty basic rundown of what happened. College student Feiner was trying trying to get the whites and blacks in a mixed crowd to start fighting each other in a part of his rant. The police were watching for some time to make sure that nothing happened. After Feiner continued to get the crowd to fight, the police placed him under arrest for trying to cause a disruption. The Supreme Court upheld the arrest of Feiner, naturally amid some controversy. The precedent of this case holds over to a series of important considerations about what can be considered "free speech" and has yet to be overturned in almost 60 years, leading to "time, manner, and place" (TMP) considerations on speech.
Of course, there's some scenarios to consider under this precedent. Let's say I'm soapboxing by the entrance to the Draft Office, telling people not to join the army. This, in of itself, is perfectly legal. However, some actions will move this into the realm of the Feiner decision.
* If I physically keep someone from entering the Draft Office, I am now disturbing the peace and can now be arrested by police.
* If I glue the door shut as you suggested, that is an act of vandalism. That's a whole other set of laws.
* If someone tries to get in and is blocked by someone inspired by my emotionally neutral speech, the blocker can be arrested, but I cannot.
* If I see someone trying to get in and say "Don't let him get in!" and a crony or sympathizer tries to bock them from the entrance, both of us are now eligible for arrest.
In short, if you are talking in terms of US laws and legal precedence, I see very little support for your argument in terms of outright legality. If you're proposing your idea as some sort of philosophical postulate, that's an entirely different ballpark. There's a huge difference between "what you can do" and "what you can legally do."
You're making it *difficult for them* to get in, it is not, however, impossible. It makes it incredibly uncomfortable for them to cross the picket, as courts have determined is A-OK for anti-choice protesters, but they can still make it across if they so choose.PlaidHatter said:
I've cited an American Supreme Court ruling that has been supported by 60 years of federal doctrine. You haven't made any such citation; you mention anti-choice protesters off-hand, but you don't refer to any court cases, documents, legal proceedings, or even some sort of news story about such protesters.RvLeshrac said:
If you have some sort of basis aside from your own anecdotes, please bring it to the table. Until you actually bring cited work to your defense, I have no reason to believe a word you've said and will not take your argument seriously.
There have been dozens of cases brought before a variety of courts, none of which agree on exactly how much leeway should be given. The "buffer zones" proscribed range from 8' to 300'. I could cite them all, but I was unaware this was a legal forum.PlaidHatter said:
The issue with legal precedent is that if there hasn't been a specific case against a specific action, raised to a high level, it isn't particularly easy to gain access to that information outside of an L-N subscription search. You haven't actually addressed the issue of making it *difficult* to access a business, you merely addressed the issue of making it *impossible* to access a business.
I have explicitly described any hindrance from keeping someone to enter a facility. At the point where I obstruct the entrance with the intent of keeping someone out, no matter how indirectly, I'm inhibiting the constitutional rights of the person I'm blocking. The "crime" (for lack of a better term) lies in the intent rather than the degree. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you on what degree or manner of "difficulty" you're referring?RvLeshrac said:
"Cyber terrorism", "cyberpolice", ha ha, what hilarious terms... shouldn't the police be investigating and preventing real, dangerous crimes, rather that wasting their time with software pirates and would-be hackers? It seems as if the police nowadays are more concerned
about protecting, preserving and furthering the interests of private corporations and businesses rather than serving their duty to protect citizens.
When nowadays governments worldwide and their respective subordinate governmental agents like the police are part of the mafia and participate in NWO-like totalitarian acts they deserve to get punished by the regular citizens for abusing their given power.
Also, laws never stopped the police to kill innocent people without any consenquences... so it's quite hypocritical to say that we should support power-hungry governments and their servants when we face the double standards of society each day.
Still, the Anonymous group members should try to be more professional otherwise their "hacking" hold up to ridicule. Those arrested in this particular case aren't real hackers at all.
Plus, we shouldn't forget that the public image of Anonymous is a product that is 50% real and 50% constructed by the media, so not everything that we're presented with is to be trusted.
@ Redlin5: I totally agree with you, real hackers never get caught.
@ Straying Bullet: You've got a point there, internet censorship is worse than either software piracy or hacking.
@ 93) Raven's Nest: I totally agree with you, police forces ridicule themselves these days too... wasting precious tax payers' resources chasing would-be hackers instead of fighting real threats...
@ 105) Sansha: +1
@ 102) RvLeshrac: +1.
@ 113) Milkman Dan: +1, yeah, like running a program is supposed to be a crime. I imagine a granny somewhere getting arrested for trying out a program (out of curiosity) that she shouldn't have...
about protecting, preserving and furthering the interests of private corporations and businesses rather than serving their duty to protect citizens.
When nowadays governments worldwide and their respective subordinate governmental agents like the police are part of the mafia and participate in NWO-like totalitarian acts they deserve to get punished by the regular citizens for abusing their given power.
Also, laws never stopped the police to kill innocent people without any consenquences... so it's quite hypocritical to say that we should support power-hungry governments and their servants when we face the double standards of society each day.
Still, the Anonymous group members should try to be more professional otherwise their "hacking" hold up to ridicule. Those arrested in this particular case aren't real hackers at all.
Plus, we shouldn't forget that the public image of Anonymous is a product that is 50% real and 50% constructed by the media, so not everything that we're presented with is to be trusted.
@ Redlin5: I totally agree with you, real hackers never get caught.
@ Straying Bullet: You've got a point there, internet censorship is worse than either software piracy or hacking.
@ 93) Raven's Nest: I totally agree with you, police forces ridicule themselves these days too... wasting precious tax payers' resources chasing would-be hackers instead of fighting real threats...
@ 105) Sansha: +1
@ 102) RvLeshrac: +1.
@ 113) Milkman Dan: +1, yeah, like running a program is supposed to be a crime. I imagine a granny somewhere getting arrested for trying out a program (out of curiosity) that she shouldn't have...
I understand your point but just because some of the Police are involved in Cybercrime it doesn't mean they have stopped investigating all other crime. I agree that going after these anon chumps is a waste of time but they want to send out a message. The attacks were widely reported on so the Police response has to be public to. To be honest if it scares off they next wave of foolish folk who think they can get away with this sort of crap.sahwar said:
Also if you knew the damage Cyber Terrorism could cause you would not be laughing, you'd be living in a cave crying like a little girl
@Gormers1: So true.
It's a known fact that "cyber terrorism" ISN'T like real-life terrorism, it's true that it CAN help organize and coordinate the latter, but it can't possibly do any physical harm beyond enslaving people to the PC screen and the Web (net addiction for example), spreading misleading information (disinformation), propaganda slogans (psychological manipulation), data mining of personal information, stealing money or tracking people and their online activities.
Internet usage caps, Internet censorship ? those things that have worsened in recent decades are just a lot of cr*p, that's just excuses for governments to have even MORE control over their "citizens". People should learn that the peoples of the world OWN their respective countries, NOT the governments they've "elected" to "represent" them. The illusion of good government has long been proven to be just that ? a massive illusion whose only goal is to manipulate people to become even more servant-like and hopelessly dependant on the "mercy" of their governmental "masters". Governmental agencies are already too powerful and self-serving for their own good and shouldn't be given more opportunities to claim our freedom as something donated by them to us in exchange for "security" (and idea which is just wrong, since people form and own their countries and governments, NOT the other way around).
The choice here is simple: either the governments begin to take real action against REAL threats and stop wasting their time with script kiddies (and thus reduce the number of real "cyber crimes") or governments have to go away.
Better yet, governments and people should spent more time, efforts and resources by humanely trying to prevent crimes from ever being committed (better, cheaper/more accessible and of higher quality education and more labor opportunities, less social inequalities, less hypocrisy from politicians, etc), rather than wasting times punishing what has already been done (and can't ever be rolled back / ).
The longer the Westerners do nothing to prevent the gross governmental/state infringement and utter abuse of their citizens' and other countries' human and civil rights and stand still while their own governments are progressively eliminating and reducing the people's freedom (human and civil liberties and rights), the shorter the path to the global totalitarian 1984 of the 21st century is.
Personal prosperity isn't to be left behind, but achieving it through the stomping of others' strive for the same is just plain wrong. And the stomping is what governments are doing more and more each and every day... you can clearly picture the dystopian conditions that we're already living in, you be the judge of what the future holds unless people start defending their liberty from the claws of greedy, power-hungry governments (Big Governments) and Big Businesses (that usually secretly own these governments or at least influence their policies and actions greatly).
The smarter Eastern Europeans already know this: neither communism nor capitalism are good for everyone unless freedom and liberties are defended for everyone by everyone.
EDIT:
I do agree that cyber crimes COULD potentially get ugly, but they are usually committed for political and/or financial reasons and aren't really a phenomenon that's just restricted to online activities. If the causes of crimes are reduced, so will crimes too. After all, the cyber world (the Web/the Internet) is just an extension and part of reality, not a separate reality. Yet it's an extension that for the most part is harmless even when big accusations are brought up. So the Web should remain free (especially totally censorship-free), since it's like a barometer that indicates the level of democracy and freedom. Restricting free speech doesn't help democracy improve, it worsens the situation and angers normal law-abiding and liberty-loving citizens.
Wasting almost all resources on punishing for things that can never be reverted is as useful as encouraging crime by doing more crime (governmental or corporate crimes aren't something non-existent you know, but have you heard recently of any such major crimes being revealed to the public by state officials? Nope? I thought so. And they probably won't, since the purpetrators are usually the same who should be "defending" us and "helping" us).
That's quite the one-sided opinion if you ask me. I know, mine isn't any less biased, but let's be honest here.monkey jesus said:I understand your point but just because some of the Police are involved in Cybercrime it doesn't mean they have stopped investigating all other crime. I agree that going after these anon chumps is a waste of time but they want to send out a message. The attacks were widely reported on so the Police response has to be public to. To be honest if it scares off they next wave of foolish folk who think they can get away with this sort of crap.sahwar said:
Also if you knew the damage Cyber Terrorism could cause you would not be laughing, you'd be living in a cave crying like a little girl
It's a known fact that "cyber terrorism" ISN'T like real-life terrorism, it's true that it CAN help organize and coordinate the latter, but it can't possibly do any physical harm beyond enslaving people to the PC screen and the Web (net addiction for example), spreading misleading information (disinformation), propaganda slogans (psychological manipulation), data mining of personal information, stealing money or tracking people and their online activities.
Internet usage caps, Internet censorship ? those things that have worsened in recent decades are just a lot of cr*p, that's just excuses for governments to have even MORE control over their "citizens". People should learn that the peoples of the world OWN their respective countries, NOT the governments they've "elected" to "represent" them. The illusion of good government has long been proven to be just that ? a massive illusion whose only goal is to manipulate people to become even more servant-like and hopelessly dependant on the "mercy" of their governmental "masters". Governmental agencies are already too powerful and self-serving for their own good and shouldn't be given more opportunities to claim our freedom as something donated by them to us in exchange for "security" (and idea which is just wrong, since people form and own their countries and governments, NOT the other way around).
The choice here is simple: either the governments begin to take real action against REAL threats and stop wasting their time with script kiddies (and thus reduce the number of real "cyber crimes") or governments have to go away.
Better yet, governments and people should spent more time, efforts and resources by humanely trying to prevent crimes from ever being committed (better, cheaper/more accessible and of higher quality education and more labor opportunities, less social inequalities, less hypocrisy from politicians, etc), rather than wasting times punishing what has already been done (and can't ever be rolled back / ).
The longer the Westerners do nothing to prevent the gross governmental/state infringement and utter abuse of their citizens' and other countries' human and civil rights and stand still while their own governments are progressively eliminating and reducing the people's freedom (human and civil liberties and rights), the shorter the path to the global totalitarian 1984 of the 21st century is.
Personal prosperity isn't to be left behind, but achieving it through the stomping of others' strive for the same is just plain wrong. And the stomping is what governments are doing more and more each and every day... you can clearly picture the dystopian conditions that we're already living in, you be the judge of what the future holds unless people start defending their liberty from the claws of greedy, power-hungry governments (Big Governments) and Big Businesses (that usually secretly own these governments or at least influence their policies and actions greatly).
The smarter Eastern Europeans already know this: neither communism nor capitalism are good for everyone unless freedom and liberties are defended for everyone by everyone.
EDIT:
So the police SHOULD continue committing crimes too, just because it MAY potentially "help" them "reduce" "cyber terrorism"? Fighting fire with fire just doesn't work. You know the saying: "And eye for an eye and after a while the whole world ends up blind." Also, fighting violence by violence and by inflicting state terrorism doesn't seem to help reduce crimes at all, it's actually the other way around.
The police have to be more careful rather than just want to throw sand at the eyes of the public by arresting "dangerous pro hackers" (i.e. 18-years-old script kiddies and hacking-interested pensioner enthusiasts).
Why do you think am not already living in a cave, but for a different, yet remarkably similarly themed reason ? 1984-like Big Governments, backed up by their Big Business masters/benefactors?Also if you knew the damage Cyber Terrorism could cause you would not be laughing, you'd be living in a cave crying like a little girl
I do agree that cyber crimes COULD potentially get ugly, but they are usually committed for political and/or financial reasons and aren't really a phenomenon that's just restricted to online activities. If the causes of crimes are reduced, so will crimes too. After all, the cyber world (the Web/the Internet) is just an extension and part of reality, not a separate reality. Yet it's an extension that for the most part is harmless even when big accusations are brought up. So the Web should remain free (especially totally censorship-free), since it's like a barometer that indicates the level of democracy and freedom. Restricting free speech doesn't help democracy improve, it worsens the situation and angers normal law-abiding and liberty-loving citizens.
Wasting almost all resources on punishing for things that can never be reverted is as useful as encouraging crime by doing more crime (governmental or corporate crimes aren't something non-existent you know, but have you heard recently of any such major crimes being revealed to the public by state officials? Nope? I thought so. And they probably won't, since the purpetrators are usually the same who should be "defending" us and "helping" us).
Known by who? it is a mistake to make bold statements about a topic you clearly know very little about. Cyber-terrorism is terrorism it gets a "cyber" prefix because of the methods used, in this is is alone, you don't get "bullet-terrorism" or "explosives-terrorism".sahwar said:
The vast majority of critical national infrastructure is networked, mostly on isolated and very well secured networks but it is still possible to control remotely. Now a malicious party with the ability to turn off any utility at will can cause incalculable harm and if they can stop information flowing out from people responsible for damage control you have widespread panic and fear. This is the point of terrorism.
If you don't think it will cause no physical harm try looking up crime figures for a blackout. See what people do when the food can't be imported or refrigerated. See how many ICU's can function once the generators run out. We are three meals away from anarchy, remember that.
Also:
1. What do you think the government gains by capping your internet connection?
2. When have you (or anyone you know) ever been a victim of internet censorship? you've read a buttload of scare-scaremongering media drivel about how you are watched at all times but in reality the only people who care what you do online are the folks who want to sell you something.
3. The Police arrested the anon chumps in the UK because they breached the Computer Misuse Act. Detecting them is a simple as pulling the logs from a DDOS'd server, running a whois and getting the ISP to release the details of the users with a RIPA request. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REDUCING CYBER-TERRORISM. It's a simple breach of the law, 100's of similar arrests happen every week, you only read about this because it was related to Operation Avenge Assange.
How is this fighting fire with fire? Also you can fight a forest fire with a firebreak (natch).
4. They really aren't wasting almost all there resources, terrorism has a cyber element, counter-terrorism has a cyber element.
5. You are not oppressed. You are not being monitored by the Government. You can post whatever the hell you like on the internet and if you were really in a dystopia you wouldn't see ten thousand rednecks asking to see Obama's passport now would you?
And finally, you want us all to be equal and therefore there would be no reason for crime? Marxism as a thought experiment is a beautiful, beautiful way to live but it just doesn't scale to a whole country. Unless of course you have a a government with total power over every last resource and service...................... I don't think you'd like that now would you?
