Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Anonymous Member Sentenced For Joining DDoS Attack For One Minute

Unknown Lamer posted 1 year,16 days | from the are-you-serious dept.

Security 562

jfruh writes "One of the most potent aspects of Anonymous is, well, its anonymity — but that isn't absolute. Eric Rosol was caught by federal authorities participating in a DDoS attack on a company owned by Koch Industry; for knocking a website offline for 15 minutes, Rosol got two years of probation and had to pay $183,000 in restitution (the amount Koch paid to a security consultant to protect its website ater the attack)." The worst part? From the article: "Eric J. Rosol, 38, is said to have admitted that on Feb. 28, 2011, he took part in a denial of service attack for about a minute on a Web page of Koch Industries..."

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

And they wonder why... (5, Insightful)

TerminaMorte (729622) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595601)

no one trusts the "justice" system anymore. One minute of using an automated tool is apparently a worse offense than crashing the economy.

Re:And they wonder why... (5, Insightful)

Ian Grant (3082979) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595731)

Where's the "Like" button? There's just something egregiously wrong when you can be fined $183,000 and get two years probation for something like participating in a short-lived denial of service attack. That's a wildly disproportionate punishment!

Re:And they wonder why... (5, Interesting)

aeranvar (2589619) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596113)

I wonder how long it will be before a company attempts to make a DoS case against someone for visiting a site once. I could see the prosecutor in the Aaron Swartz case trying this. He was conducting a denial of service attack simply by visiting the download site for those academic journal articles. It just wasn't a very good DoS attack.

Re:And they wonder why... (3, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595825)

There are plenty of people who trust the Justice system. Those who have lawyers in retinue.

Re:And they wonder why... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595889)

Not that the site didn't have problems, but what about this? Republicans and DDoS of ACA website

http://www.informationweek.com/security/vulnerabilities-and-threats/hackers-threaten-destruction-of-obamacare-website/d/d-id/1112207 [informationweek.com] ?

Re:And they wonder why... (5, Informative)

sycodon (149926) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595967)

Not one mention of Republicans in that link.

So, you are just guessing? Hoping? Accusing?

We know you are lying, that's plain to see by visiting the link.

Or, you are just being a dick.

Reply (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45596061)

But I thought Republicans are stupid. How could they possible bring down a website created by the genius Democrats, who are so much smarter than everyone else, and know best how we should all live our lives?

Re:And they wonder why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595969)

Well, do we have draconian laws preventing people from crashing the economy like that? We DO? Oh. Right.

Re:And they wonder why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45596041)

And how many of the people whining about the tiered justice system are also whining about the tiered tax system?

Re:And they wonder why... (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596049)

Right? And John Thain still runs free.

Re:And they wonder why... (1)

noshellswill (598066) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596137)

Yep,  automated-tool type progressive didn't learn to keep his paws off another mans property. You know **property** ... what a man earns by working not getting blo-jobs from Jane-da-krak-hoe ! Fyuck that  kommi  byte-bytch in the *zzwhole.

Importance (5, Insightful)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595609)

1 minute or 15, you were there, your guilty. Plain and simple. so for me thats not the worst part. It seems to be a fair part if you ask me

Re:Importance (5, Interesting)

WillAdams (45638) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595659)

Financial penalties should be proportional:

  - how many others participated in this DDOS? divide by that number
  - how long were other machines involved in this? divide by that time
  - how fast was his internet connection in comparison to the others? divide by that

He admitted to guilt, but it's not fair to hold him completely financially responsible simply because he was the only person they were able to catch and was honest enough to confess.

Re:Importance (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595699)

Charging the defendants with the cost of 'fixing' their web site is bogus, because they should have had that done in the first place to prevent themselves from being open to attack

Re:Importance (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595843)

Charging robbers for the cost of replacing doors is bogus, because the home owner should have installed steel vault doors in the first place to prevent themselves from being open to attack.

Websites are public places. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595903)

Homes are private.

Seems you don't understand this intertoobs thing.

Re:Websites are public places. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596023)

I can drop my wallet in public. That doesn't mean someone can run up and take it and run away before I can even bend over.

While being held financially responsible for the whole amount is questionable -- or maybe not -- that he participated in this fun, cool kids game, and is thus partly responsible, is not.

Talk to your congressmen, who write the laws allowing full financial responsibility to be ladeled atop the poor sucker who got caught in a group crime. Good luck with that.

Re:Importance (4, Insightful)

halltk1983 (855209) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595915)

Most robbers don't pay to fix the homeowners homes. Nor do they pay for the homeowners to install security systems, or hire a security guard to patrol the premises.

Re:Importance (2, Insightful)

Etherwalk (681268) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595865)

No, it should be higher than that--you have to multiply it enough that it discourages the behavior. That's how legal penalties work, even in a consequentialist rather than retributivist model. That means you have to take into account the probability of getting caught, which is low.

Re:Importance (5, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596009)

Even under that model an absurdly high number is still an absurdly high number. He can never repay it. Thus it will never be repaid. The "punitive benefit" of that number is entirely bogus.

Justice is never served by an unreasonably high number.

It's far more likely to increase disrespect for the law.

Re:Importance (3, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596099)

So the best way to discourage a DDoS is to say that the more people you involve in the DDoS, the less punishment you should receive for getting caught?

I can't think of a better way to encourage DDoS participation to be honest.

I don't know about anybody else, but I think a DDoS is a form of censorship. A website provides information, effectively making it speech. Even if it is speech you disagree with, you should let it be. Personally, I hate communism more than just about anything, but I wouldn't ever encourage anybody to DDoS a communist website. (That isn't to say I haven't left them unmolested; I went to one of their forums asking them if they'd still work while I play world of warcraft after one of their members made a long post about how under communism every man could live life as they choose.)

DDoS should absolutely be punished, and it shouldn't matter just how much you participated, rather mens rhea alone (the fact that you wanted it to happen, and that you actively participated in it) should determine punishment. Honestly I have no sympathy for this guy. He thought he was being clever by shutting somebody up just because he didn't like them, and now he has to answer for that. I don't care what this website it was, I don't care if it was a nazi site or some corporation that he felt was destroying his soul, you just don't do it.

Re:Importance (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45596123)

If 5 people all plunge a knife in to someones chest at once, they dont each get a 5th of the death sentence/life in prison.

Re:Importance (0)

Noryungi (70322) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595679)

Nice troll ''fluffy''. What about that traffic light you went through just as it was going red the other day?

That's worth a bit of anal search, if you ask me... [source [yahoo.com] ]

The moral of the story, to me, is that you should never engage in DDoS from your home machine. Especially if you are attacking the Koch Brothers.

Re:Importance (1)

Zantac69 (1331461) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595909)

Fluffy did have a good point. If you participate in a criminal action - then you are potentially on the line for the whole kit and kaboodle. Running a red light is not even the same sport. I wont get a ticket if I am a passenger in the car that runs a red light, but I sure as shit would if I was driving my car and ran the light along with a long string of others. Now - should Rosol have to pay for the bug fix? Hell no - thats like having a criminal pay for a new type of lock because they picked the other one easily.

Re:Importance (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596031)

The problem with that is they wouldn't ticket you for every car that ran the redlight, only yours. However, you might be on the hook for something like conspiracy to run red lights (it's an imperfect analogy).

Re:Importance (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45596067)

What I'm hearing is that you think a DDoS should, by its very definition, be a convenient legal loophole, setting a precedent for justice by mob rule. After all, if someone was only a willing* PART of taking down a website and obviously couldn't have done it THEMSELVES, they should get off scot-free! If there's a vandalism problem going on and some punk kid takes a baseball bat to someone's mailbox, they should clearly get off easy because the other members of his gang burned down five buildings in the neighborhood, including the one to which the mailbox belonged! In a drive-by shooting, if one of the passengers of the car only killed one person out of the twenty gunned down, he should be perfectly cleared of all charges, never have to spend a day in court, and be free to scamper around in a lovely field with the rest of his innocent and pure woodland friends!

*: Pay attention, this is the key word here.

Re:Importance (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595737)

Be happy that they don't count each of the thousands(?) individual "illegal access" in that minute!

Re:Importance (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595779)

You are completely right?

That's why we need snipers in every building, ready to take down anyone who breaks any law!

You spit a chewing gum on a public street? BAM! HEADSHOT!

Re:Importance (3, Funny)

Psion (2244) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595867)

Yes, but what if one of the snipers breaks a law? Hmmm? Who snipes the snipers?

Re:Importance (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596115)

Yes, but what if one of the snipers breaks a law? Hmmm? Who snipes the snipers?

Fine, fine, I'll do it.

Re:Importance (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45596003)

Well that would certainly start improving things once corporate execs and lawyers start having their heads explode as they leave their offices.

CAPTCHA: patented

Re:Importance (1)

geogob (569250) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595913)

You killed one person or 800'000, you did it, you're guilty of genocide.

Examples following this lead can be pushed to the absurd... it only shows how this is absurd as well.

Re:Importance (1)

Bengie (1121981) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595943)

The CO2 you emit is only killing the world a little bit, so you must be charged with mass genocide. There is a difference between a little and a lot.

These people (4, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595615)

These people need to learn what actual violence against them and their property is, so that proportionate responses have value.

If your entire life is going to be ruined for any sort of protest, the natural incentive is to go in for intimidation, murder, arson, whatever to make their lives really hell instead.

Re:These people (2)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595639)

Not that I'm endorsing DDOSing, just reacting to disproportionate responses.

Re:These people (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595767)

If your entire life is going to be ruined for any sort of protest

It's not. Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and all that.
But there is no protected right to attack other people's computers.


Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595975)

"free speech zones"
documented government use of provocateurs
documented government infiltration of dissent groups
CCTV drones recording everything happening in public.
NSA illegal collection of data (LOVEINT).
NSA illegal blackmail using illegally collected data (SEXINT).
NSA sharing illegally collected information with preferred partners. (UK, AUS, Israel today. Equifax, debt collection agencies and your employer tomorrow).

You've got nothing to fear if you're doing nothing wrong. ;-p

Re:These people (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595995)

Is DDOSing a website essentially different from blocking access to a company's store by holding a demonstration, or preventing something from being built or demolished by having protesters chain themselves to stuff?

Re:These people (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595805)

yeah. i've been wondering that a lot. would some of these crazy abuses in government and business happen if the criminals feared their victims would retaliate? really surprised more shootings don't happen given the number of lives ruined by our insane "justice" system.

Re:These people (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595893)

Damned right!

Let's get together a nice posse, and have ourselves a good ol' lynching! Vigilante justice is the best justice, right?

Re:These people (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595991)

Are you making a sarcastic point about disproportionate punishment and there being no difference between vigilante and misrepresentation of 'IN the best interests of the people' regarding corporate corruption of the courts / private companies acting as courts?

Actual Violence (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595899)

These people need to learn what actual violence against them and their property is

Then you get to learn what ACTUAL violence is, either buy police officer or prison inmate.

Let me know when you want off the not-so-merry-go-round.

If your entire life is going to be ruined for any sort of protest, the natural incentive is to go...

Except that property damage is not protest.

Actions that will ruin my entire life do not "incent" me to act worse, they in fact very much incent me not to ruin my life. It is possible to protest without damaging anyone or anything, a fact that seems lost on many groups these days.

Re:Actual Violence (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595917)

How much does "police officer or prison inmate" cost?

Re:Actual Violence (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596077)

Maybe it's a BOGO special. Buy a cop, get a prison inmate free!

Re:Actual Violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45596069)

How exactly was this web site damaged?

Re:Actual Violence (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596121)

Then you get to learn what ACTUAL violence is, either buy police officer or prison inmate.

His point is that this fellow is learning what ACTUAL violence is, by police officer and prison inmate, for doing nothing more than sending TCP packets.

Except that property damage is not protest.

Two things: A DDOS is not property damage. And are you claiming the Boston Tea Party [wikipedia.org] was not a protest?

It is possible to protest without damaging anyone or anything

It's not possible to effectively protest anything in todays America. You can have your say all you want inside free speech zones, but you'll never be heard. What good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?

Re:These people (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45596043)

Yeah, you would have gotten off more lightly if you went to the actual location of the business and took a sledge hammer to all the cars and then lit them all on fire. But if that's what the justice system would rather have us do...

You Got Caught, Case Closed (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595617)

Doesn't matter if it was for one minute, one hour or one day. You did the crime, you do the crime. If you rape a woman for one minute, you get sentenced for the same as if you raped her for ten minutes.

This is a stupid and dumb angle to take slashdot. You should be utterly and completely ashamed to even articulate this.

hmm (0, Flamebait)

nicholasjay (921044) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595625)

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

He admitted to doing something illegal? He got caught and sentenced.

"But officer! My knife was only in his kidney for one second!"

Re:hmm (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595727)

Because stabbing someone is the same thing as sending traffic to a website. I'm sure you would be happy with the death penalty for jaywalking too.

Re:hmm (2)

nicholasjay (921044) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595959)

The length of time spent doing something illegal shouldn't absolve guilt that it was illegal in the first place. In my mind it's the same as the mob mentality that overtakes people during riots. Just because everyone else was looting more expensive goods doesn't excuse stealing something cheap.

And he wasn't just sending some traffic to a website. He was participating in a DDoS attack and full well knew what he was doing and what the group was trying to accomplish.

If you're going to break the law to try to accomplish some 'noble'* goal, you have to be prepared for the repercussions of your own actions.

* I'm not saying that his goal was or wasn't noble, but everyone considers their own goals to be noble.

They are scared (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595629)

And making examples.

Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595631)

Censoring someone else is never valid. (which is what a DDoS is trying to do)

One minute? Oh, my... (1)

Noryungi (70322) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595637)

What about that curl-loader test I did that lasted for two hours?

Oh wait, that was at my job. Never mind, carry on...

he admitted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595641)

never admit...

"take part in ddos attack" (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595643)

equals "open the browser, write the url and press f5 multiple times"?

I fully expect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595647)

to be sued by Koch industries for posting negative comments about them on this story
The amount will be what they had to pay their astro-turfing crew to post positive comments to counter mine

The Crime of Admission (1)

Dialecticus (1433989) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595649)

Then wasn't his real crime admitting to being involved? After all, until that point, it could have been someone else using his internet, or spoofing his IP, or that his computer had been compromised and made part of a botnet, etc. And it would seem obvious that the effect on the site would have been no different had he done nothing whatsoever.

No, the worst part was joining in the attack (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595655)

Knowingly trying to bring down web sites is a crime. Should we also not arrest people if they only throw one brick through a store window but do not take anything? Should we also not arrest people who kick someone only once when lying on the ground?

A crime is a crime, and the act of committing a crime takes only the moment you decide you are going to commit it. The duration of the actual crime hardly matters when compared to intent.

Also, consider the fact that the minute is only the point they could prove what he did, if he was willing to aid in DDOS attacks who knows how many other people he helped attack in the past?

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (5, Insightful)

rich_hudds (1360617) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595697)

You don't get fined $183,000 for throwing a brick through a window though.

It's supposed to be a justice system, and that fine is clearly unjust.

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45596047)

You do depending on the window (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stained_Glass_Window_Washington_National_Cathedral.jpg)

Be careful when comparing digital crimes to traditional counterparts; if it cost a company $200K to replace and reinforce a window, then that's what the brick thrower owes. It just so happens that digital "windows" are significantly more expensive and, consequently, the damage scales much more with a keyboard than with a brick.

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (5, Insightful)

harvestsun (2948641) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595715)

Yes, we should arrest people that throw a brick through a window. But we should fine them the price of the window, not the price of hiring an elite security team to protect the window from future brick attacks.

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (1)

Shados (741919) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595963)

So every time I break a window, the worse thing that can happen, in the very unlikely event that I get caught, is that I pay to replace the window? Hell, even if you tack on 300% punitive damage, the odds of me getting caught is so damn low, I probably can break the entire city's windows.

Since when I finally do get caught, they probably won't be able to prove it was me who did all the others (its not the most uncommon of crimes)... so I break 1000 windows, and, including punitive damage, I'm only on the hook for a handful of them.

Time to break all the windows!

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (2)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596087)

> So every time I break a window, the worse thing that can happen, in the very unlikely event that I get caught, is that I pay to replace the window?

Pretty much. This is a very basic and OLD legal principle.

It's BIBLICAL even.

You know... all of that "eye for an eye" stuff. It's not just about poking people's eyes out.

But we all know that there's a blatant double standard here. Tort reform for the rich, crime and punishment for the poor.

I am focusing on "worst part" comment (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596017)

First of all, you'll note I am mainly referring to the comment that the 'worst part" is that he only participated for a minute. You seem to be arguing the worst part is the fine.

I partly agree, however I would also say that computers allow us to magnify actions beyond what we can do physically - just as we can send a message to millions via computer, we can also easily do millions of dollars in damage via computer to. I can't say what the right fine would be but it's probably not proportional to what someone would think one persons fine should be...

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (2)

TheCarp (96830) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596065)

Exactly. The price of fixing the window is the price the malcontent causes them. The extra security and upgrades to the window to deal with future bricks is.... their choice. I mean, if I destroy your dodge neon. Its perfectly fair to say I need to to pay you its replacement value; and probably more if it was malicious; Its replacement value is not the cost of the Ferrari you decided you wanted to upgrade to since you had to get a new car anyway.

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (5, Interesting)

Ian Grant (3082979) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595751)

Proportionality is important, too. His punishment was wildly out of proportion to the offense.

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (2)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596135)

The real problem is that he's likely never going to be able to repay it. This fine is a fiction. Such fiction undermines the law and respect for same.

Something sane that this person could actually pay would have been much more meaningful in terms of law and order.

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595797)

Yes, and knowingly occupying a bus seat not specifically designated for colored folks is a crime. It must be punished blindly and harshly to protect our American way of life.

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596001)

Yes, yes it was.

That's what made it civil disobedience, and that's why people were arrested and fined for it, until the Supreme Court [wikipedia.org] overturned the law.

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595803)

So if there is a riot and the incompetent police only manage to arrest one person, do we hold that one person liable for all of the damages of the entire riot?

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595881)

And if 8,000 people threw the brick, don't charge each person with the entire cost. He's guilty and should be charged, but the punishment is not proportional to the crime.

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595981)

Please, don't compare a DDoS to throwing a brick, it's silly.
A DDoS is equivalent to, at best, blocking an entry door in protest. It doesn't break anything, just makes it unavailable for a while.

Re:No, the worst part was joining in the attack (2)

BaronAaron (658646) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596131)

Yes, a crime is a crime, but if we are going to build analogies with real world crimes they should at least be correct.

Obviously many DDOS attacks are not carried out by volunteers. They are instead vast hijacked zombie farms under the control a few people. In those cases the term "attack" makes more sense. From my understanding this DDOS attack was carried out by volunteers though. It should really be considered a protest.

What if this guy was part of a real world flash mob that formed in front of a Koch's HQ? Suppose the mob was so large it made it difficult for legitimate employees and/or clients to enter the building? He still might have been arrested but I'm sure the punishment would have been less severe.

But when the situation is reversed.... (4, Insightful)

ikedasquid (1177957) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595663)

and the MPAA issues a successful DMCA takedown (automated) for something they do not own the rights to....nothing happens.

But your honor! (3, Interesting)

tacroy (813477) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595675)

But your honor, I only pulled the trigger for 1 second, 2 tops! While the fine seems FREAKING large I can appreciate that it was tied directly too a purpose. i.e. the amount paid to hire someone to secure the site. But I feel attaching it to the actual value lost (5k) would have been more fair, maybe with a bit extra to be punitive? I imagine that if they caught more people the fine would have been spread out among them? But I don't understand why intent to do harm would in any way be lessened because "I only did the bad thing for a short period of time."

Re:But your honor! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595935)

because your analogy is wrong. Essentially it like fining an individual car for a traffic jam because everyone is trying to get to a concert at the same time. Or if a group of people created a traffic jam because they were protesting a person at an event. You can't really see someone receiving a fine to widen the road in the future can you?

Re:But your honor! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595979)

1. Build site, host on crappy server.
2. Piss off Anonymous, instigate DDoS attack.
3. Pay "security consultant" ridiculous amounts of money to secure crappy server against ongoing DDoS.
4. Profit!

Sounds perfectly logical to me.

Consultants are now paid for, so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595703)

Does this mean any further people found guilty can't be liable for the fine to recoup the consultant's fees?

Of course, they can always go for lawyer and court fees.

Well stop trying to hack people! (2, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595705)

1. It is ineffective. The Koch brothers stance that there is some Liberal Conspiracy going on, hacking them and creating a DOS only proves their paranoia, and only makes them more resolved to continue.

2. It could hurt the wrong people. Are you hitting only their data center, or is that data center shared with other organizations as well. I had a job at a placed that hosted Electronic medical records. We had an external hosting site... They also hosted a big evil bank. They DOS the Bank but they also DOS thousands of doctors EMR systems. Granted we had a backup route, but that may not be the case.

3. You put your views on the moral low ground. Are your point so week and irrational that you need to jump into a technological bulling to get your point across.

Making light of a crime? (0)

bagboy (630125) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595719)

So it's okay to participate for only one minute in a hate crime? Or a murder? Or a Heist? Crime is crime, yes? The whole point of law is defining a line not to cross and once crossed the consequence is provided. Most folks know this and in choosing to commit the crime, are also choosing to accept any consequence.

Re:Making light of a crime? (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596107)

Absolutely! Crime is crime! There's not an iota of difference between stealing a loaf of bread to feed your kid and driving a lawnmower over an acre of puppies.

My, what a lovely little crop of fascist twerps we're growing around here lately.

The Messiah denied bail in #Singapore (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595721)

in another story, a hacker by the name "The Messiah" who claims to be part of Annoymous was denied bail in Singapore.

Yes, and? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595743)

In 1997 David Scott Ghantt was convicted and sent to prison for seven and a half years for only joining in a bank robbery for thirty minutes [slashdot.org] .

Is it fair that Eric Rosol was asked to pay for something Koch Industries should have done on their own, before being attacked? No. Is it fair that he should be arrested and tried for engaging in civil disobedience? Yes. That's kind of the point of it.

This sets a dangerous precedent (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595781)

Now you can be convicted for owning a computer that joins in a botnet's DDoS attacks.

Re:This sets a dangerous precedent (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595955)

How does it set a dangerous precedent? He admitted to participating in the attacks and plead guilty not that his computer was taken over by a botnet.

joint and several liability (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595801)

Oops-- sucks to be the only one that gets caught.
He's currently on the hook for the whole of Koch's damages, but he can always go after the other members of Anonymous to spread the pain around.
Or, maybe a kickstarter project; surely his brothers in arms would contribute......

Follow the rules (2, Insightful)

mtrachtenberg (67780) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595837)

The rules of modern day America are pretty simple. You have liberty to do whatever you like, but DON'T FUCK WITH THE OWNERS.

His own damned fault... (1, Flamebait)

benjfowler (239527) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595853)

... for offending our rich libertarian overlords.

Bow down before your masters, peon.

The rich get richer (0, Flamebait)

doggo (34827) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595871)

Fuck Koch Industries. And fuck the Koch brothers.

There they go again doing everything they can, anyway they can, to scrape more profit.

So one guy has to pay $183,000. Does that mean any other Anonymous members involved in the DDoS attack are going to get the same punishment? It does if the Koch brothers have anything to say about it. 'Cause: profit!

Think about it, the Koch bros. pay some "security consultant" $183,000 to fix the problem. But if they bust a couple of people involved. Not only do they break even, but they make a profit.

These scumbags deserve a lot worse than a DDoS attack. They're all about harsh punishment for people opposed to them and their so-called principles, maybe they need a taste of their own medicine.

It's not enough that they're richer than God, but they actively work to make others poorer through their manipulation of the American political process.

Re:The rich get richer (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595973)

THIS! These are the same guys we get to thank for funding the asshats that brought about the budget furlough mess!

and they are part owners of private prisons (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | 1 year,16 days | (#45595997)

and they are part owners of private prisons so they even make bank off of the prison time as well.

Re:The rich get richer (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45596093)

Who makes anyone judge and jury to decide who is good and who is evil? Who should be punished?
Being a vigilante is anarchy. If the wealthy think you are evil, they should then destroy your property.
A nation of laws prevent this. He broke the law, he played judge and jury and got what he deserved.

Punishment too harsh? Maybe, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45595941)

... even though the defendant engaged in the activity for only a minute does not change the fact that he committed a crime.

We've seen numerous cases of the justice system being extremely heavy-handed when it comes to punishing cybercrime. But let's not forget that attempting to break or hamper the operation of somebody else's website without their permission is still a crime.

Slashdotting == DDOS? (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596005)

We DDOS web sites all the time here and it's usually for more than 1 minute.

That's how Anonymous works. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,16 days | (#45596035)

They're a handful of extremely talented computer professionals, a lot of them with ties to industry. Their secret is using idealistic morons like this one instead of getting their own hands dirty. They point in a direction and a million idiots flood it with LOIC or whatever the script kiddie package-du-jour is now, they get to claim the credit with very little risk to themselves.

Don't talk to the poilce (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596053)

"An law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]

It is an old clip and I've never been to sure about the UK use of this information regarding the Silence gives consent maxim of common law.

(D)DOS is the "burning books" of current century (2)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596083)

Remember when people burned the books and pamphlets of their political opponents? How well did that work?

If you're annoyed at someone, please don't (D)DOS their site - it just strengthens their point and conviction.

Another political prisoner. (1)

lasermike026 (528051) | 1 year,16 days | (#45596117)

Yeah, Washington needs to be torn down brick by brick.

Congress approval rating: 6% - You're on notice.
Cut, fire, repeal, repeat......

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?