Two LulzSec Members Plead Guilty in British Court

[PinothyJ]

good.

Not really.

DDoS attack is nothing more than a digital protest akin to picketing outside a place of business because they did something or other. There is no difference and it pathetic that the ignorant masses and prosecutors treat it any differently.


Shame on the world…

yes really. These guys still gained access to databases and posted the personal details online multiple times.

they should be put in jail for longer then 6 months imo

HEY EVERYONE; GET OVER HERE: IT IS AN IGNORANT FOOL POSTING ON AN INTERNET FORUM!

Two members of the formerly prominent hacking group 'LulzSec' have pleaded guilty in court in the UK to charges of carrying out DDOS attacks on behalf of the group. 19-year-old Ryan and 18-year-old Jake denied allegations that they had "unlawfully obtained confidential computer data" through sources such as Pirate Bay or from LulzSec's own website.

And Mekon, the lines are pretty damn blurry! Picketing outside an establishment disrupts work and makes it hard for those wishing to go in and out to do so. This is exactly what a DoS attack does. Only a DoS attack on ill-prepared targets causes a website to drop and this only happens in a majority of cases. When we hear DDoS we instantly think that people pressed a button on their computer and a website went down when it fact, most times it slows down the website and causes disruptions, akin to a picketing mob.

Would those people picketing who WERE stopping people from entering and who stayed too long get six months in jail?


Can you see why I am annoyed at the discrepancy…

[InAUGral]

If they played part in the PSN issues then they deserve a harsher penalty because that affected so so many people and almost the entire functionality of the Playstation when connected to internet.

[Mekon]

Would those people picketing who WERE stopping people from entering and who stayed too long get six months in jail?

If they were doing it purely for the sake of being disruptive, ie. being persistent public nuisances, then yes.

If I stand outside your shop and body block anyone from entering, you'll call the police and they will tell me to move on (no matter what reason I give). If I keep coming back, I will be arrested and charged. Arguing that you should have provided another entrance to minimise the disruption I was causing is facile at best.

edit: Nevermind the fact that in all likelihood other customers will probably take matters into their own hands... internet anonymity prevents all these so-called "protestors" from getting their comeuppance from irate legitimate users inconvenienced by their behaviour.

Legally, in this country you have the right to protest. You do *not* have the right to deny people entry, or disrupt the operation of a business. What can you be charged with? Take your pick: obstructing traffic, breach of the peace, trespass, loitering, refusal to obey a police instruction, interference with trade and business, conspiracy to inflict economic harm, etc.

Lets face it, these DDoS attacks served no purpose other than to be disruptive. There was no public interest or value in it.

[Tydus]

And Mekon, the lines are pretty damn blurry! Picketing outside an establishment disrupts work and makes it hard for those wishing to go in and out to do so. This is exactly what a DoS attack does. Only a DoS attack on ill-prepared targets causes a website to drop and this only happens in a majority of cases. When we hear DDoS we instantly think that people pressed a button on their computer and a website went down when it fact, most times it slows down the website and causes disruptions, akin to a picketing mob.

Would those people picketing who WERE stopping people from entering and who stayed too long get six months in jail?


Can you see why I am annoyed at the discrepancy…

FTFY

(but seriously your blue annoys me)

[MaddMoose]

Would those people picketing who WERE stopping people from entering and who stayed too long get six months in jail?

They should and a quick google search says they do. Not many sentences of 6 months, then again most of them didn't cause disruptions on the scale that these two did.

[cyclobs]

Not really.

DDoS attack is nothing more than a digital protest akin to picketing outside a place of business because they did something or other. There is no difference and it pathetic that the ignorant masses and prosecutors treat it any differently.


Shame on the world…

yes really. These guys still gained access to databases and posted the personal details online multiple times.

they should be put in jail for longer then 6 months imo

HEY EVERYONE; GET OVER HERE: IT IS AN IGNORANT FOOL POSTING ON AN INTERNET FORUM!

i'm sorry.. did you miss the part where THEY STOLE PEOPLES PERSONAL DETAILS OUT OF 'SECURE' COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND DISTRIBUTED THOSE DETAILS TO THE PUBLIC

what a ****.

also FTFY.

[Matty]

Would those people picketing who WERE stopping people from entering and who stayed too long get six months in jail?

The correct analogy would be:

The protesters broke into the building while denying access to everyone else, stole a business ledger, put up posters around town of the info they acquired, then blamed the company for only using a safe to hold the ledger.

[PinothyJ]

Would those people picketing who WERE stopping people from entering and who stayed too long get six months in jail?

The correct analogy would be:

The protesters broke into the building while denying access to everyone else, stole a business ledger, put up posters around town of the info they acquired, then blamed the company for only using a safe to hold the ledger.

Also incorrect. This discussion is about the article and the article is about two LulzSec members who have plead guilty to DDoS. No court of law has found those two members guilty of the intrusion, extraction and exploitation of data from the various companies effected and they will not judging by the wording from the CVG and GoN articles.

Cyclobs: stop being so ignorant and read the paragraph and not just the headline. Matty: I think you missed the point as well.

Consider this: After a year long investigation the police finally get all the evidence they need and arrest about twenty members of an organised crime ring. Are you suggesting that the guy who launders the money should go to jail for six counts of first-degree murder or do you think he should be charged with what he was guilty of? The were all part of the same well oiled, tight-lipped organisation but he had nothing to do with he drug production or turf killings, but if Cyclobs had any say than that money launder would be in maximum security prison for the rest of his life.

The two members of LulzSec have plead guilty to participating in DDoS attacks and will go to jail accordingly. Any other idiot on this forum who wants to run their mouth off about how the two stole, hacked and humiliated and should pull their finger out and check the facts.


The face that I had to explain the single paragraph in the news article in question really makes me what on earth went wrong with you folks…

[Nekosan]

I'd just like to point out that being part of the mafia DOES impact on any sentence that someone receives in the US justice system, there are a number of offenses that were specifically added for the specific intention of cracking down on organized crime.

None of that matters though, comparing these idiots to a guy who launders money for the mob is a retarded argument, they acted in an unacceptable way on the internet and impacted millions of people and cost companies thousands of dollars, they deserve all the jail time they get... SOMEONE has to be made an example of, legal precedents don't just magically appear out of thin air.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who defends those douches either doesn't really understand the situation, is slightly naive or just outright has questionable moral character. I honestly can't believe that PinothyJ is seriously defending them as "protesters", really dude? Way to make me look differently at everything you'll ever post from now on...



How do you feel about the DoS attacks on Mastercard last year that cost them MILLIONS OF DOLLARS? I guess they were protesting too eh? Maybe it's ok because they're a faceless corporation? Not agreeing with someone doesn't give a person the right to try and ruin them, that's some petty **** right there.

[SuicidalSalad]

I'd say it's more like walking to the front door of a shop and continuously yelling at the shop owner until finally the shop owner breaks down in tears and can no longer function (And thus closes the shop until his wife consoles him and prepares him to work again). They brought the server down (I believe?) which goes a level beyond protesting. It's damage. Had they DDoS'd to the extent that the server was only slowed and the amount of traffic to the website became limited, they probably would have got away with it.

I think it's time to really lay down the law online. Not so much crack down on script kiddies, but more so creating a clear legislation so that people know what they can and can't get away with. I guess with the universality of the Internet, it would be quite hard to have a central governing body to deal with it :S (And TBH, I wouldn't feel comfortable with an agency having total control of the Internet).

They could still very well be protesters Nekosan, however I'd say they are bordering extremists.

[Nekosan]

I think it's time to really lay down the law online. Not so much crack down on script kiddies, but more like creating a clear legislation so that people know what they can and can't get away with. I guess with the universality of the Internet, it would be quite hard to have a central governing body to deal with it :S (And TBH, I wouldn't feel comfortable with an agency having total control of the Internet).

They could still very well be protesters Nekosan, however I'd say they are bordering extremists.

That's exactly what this case is helping to do, they're setting a legal precedent for this kind of offense which other lawyers can reference and build on, somebody has to be the first one that gets charged, unfortunately for these two idiots it's going to be them. Ecoterrorists etc get treated the same way, fortunately with them it's a more clear cut issue, "don't like Monsanto? That doesn't mean you get to bomb their ****... that makes you an ****".

There's no need for an "internet police" (for lack of a better term), people just need to understand that they can't do whatever they want online because their name/face isn't stamped on everything, people need to be held to the same standards online as they are in public and if it takes the law to do that then so be it.

Within the last 10 years the internet has become a very different animal to what it was previously, the level of common access means that it now reflects all the **** parts of society, it might just be nostalgia but I feel like a decade ago the attitude online was generally nice and friendly... now the kinds of behaviour that used to be confined to places like 4chan are the norm and it just makes me feel ill sometimes.

If an alien race arrived in orbit today and accessed the internet they'd just exterminate us, it's like looking through a window into a cankerous wound on the soul of the human race, we CAN clean that **** up though.

[SuicidalSalad]

While I agree that a precedent needs to be set, I was more thinking along the lines of those who write malicious code to wreak havoc. Don't get me wrong, these guys deserve what they're getting, but I can only see it benefiting large corporations and those that are on the end of DDoS attacks. The everyday camper sitting behind their infected, slowly dying machine isn't going to benefit.
But I guess I'm getting a bit off topic and trying to solve world hunger when the problem is only starving man (Yeah, I like analogies and metaphors, shoot me).

[Nekosan]

While I agree that a precedent needs to be set, I was more thinking along the lines of those who write malicious code to wreak havoc. Don't get me wrong, these guys deserve what they're getting, but I can only see it benefiting large corporations and those that are on the end of DDoS attacks. The everyday camper sitting behind their infected, slowly dying machine isn't going to benefit.
But I guess I'm getting a bit off topic and trying to solve world hunger when the problem is only starving man (Yeah, I like analogies and metaphors, shoot me).

The problem is that a lot of the programs they use aren't really technical masterpieces, it's not like there's some master hacker out there who's funneling spectacularly designed attack programs out to these kiddies that they're then using to wreak havoc. They're not the foot soldiers in some grand conspiracy manufacturing Stuxnet level viruses to target corporations and steal data, they're just people using the tools they've found to act like total social douchebags.

If they were causing these attacks for valid reasons or in protest of something real then I might be able to get behind it a little, but they just use random current events as an excuse to be malicious because either they don't (morally) know any better or because they want to feel a little powerful.

As an everyday user sitting behind a machine I DO benefit from these guys getting charged, any deterrent this provides means that when I turn on my PS3 or when I swipe my Mastercard then there's a greater chance it will actually WORK.

[SuicidalSalad]

As an everyday user sitting behind a machine I DO benefit from these guys getting charged, any deterrent this provides means that when I turn on my PS3 or when I swipe my Mastercard then there's a greater chance it will actually WORK.

Touché

[Clontarf[X]]

When one falls, 10 take his place.

DDoS attacks for the hacker community have always been about making a statement. Very rarely is it purely to actually deny service (although it usually ends up that way). The attacks these people were involved in (important to differentiate between involved with and actually doing) were out of a collective rage from a community of people who sometimes overdo things (much like tantrum throwing).

These charges are symbolic in nature; the truth of the matter is the attacks themselves were done by thousands upon thousands of people. And like any protest it would inconvenience some innocent bystanders, but such is life. If the actions these two were involved in didn't open your eyes to the behaviour of the organisations they targeted, which includes the insecure storage of your personal details, then not much will. Don't blame them for exploiting the insecurities of the people you trust with your most important private information.

Anyone thinking these people deserve more than 6 months jail definitely do not understand the concepts of cyber-warfare or online activists.