Anonymous goes on a rampage in response to Megaupload being shutdown

[Gamemaster77]

Anonymous, one of the most well known hacker groups has gone on a Denial of Service spree, bringing down multiple websites.

"It was the largest attack ever by Anonymous, according to an Anonymous representative, with 5,635 people using a networking tool called a "low orbit ion cannon." A LOIC is software tool that aims a massive flood of traffic at a targeted site."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/19/technology/megaupload_shutdown/index.htm

http://gizmodo.com/5877679/anonymous-kills-department-of-justice-site-in-megaupload-revenge-strike

Among the target are the Department of Justice' site, the RIAA, MPAA.org, the US Copyright Office, EMI, the FBI, and the french copyright authority the HADOPI.

What do you think of this? Frankly I believe they had it coming. I predicted that this would happen as soon as any major shutdown's happen. I hope this is a smack in the face for SOPA and PIPA. Imagine what could happen if those are passed.

 

[wilycoyote]

I'm not taking sides, but how can they do this and not get caught? Well, unless they are in Iran, North Korea, etc.?

 

[Joecoolyo]

 

[bombshoo]

Where is that xkcd comic about how attacking the public websites is like tearing down posters?

Edit: X-Post!

 

[BasketCase]

Totally worth it. I'm laughing at Anonymous right now. The irony is so delicious I gained ten pounds just hearing about it: the government totally hosing down a web site, totally doing what the anti-SOPA protesters worried about, but WITHOUT USING SOPA. The day after the anti-SOPA protest, no less.

Just classic.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Puh-lease.

All this will do will further strengthen resolve in support of SOPA and PIPA.

 

[warpus]

Totally worth it. I'm laughing at Anonymous right now. The irony is so delicious I gained ten pounds just hearing about it: the government totally hosing down a web site, totally doing what the anti-SOPA protesters worried about, but WITHOUT USING SOPA. The day after the anti-SOPA protest, no less.

Just classic.

What SOPA would allow them to do is take it down without due process. This time they had to go through the courts.

That's one of the reasons SOPA is such a bad idea.

tl;dr: Things are bad, but could get a lot worse

 

[aelf]

Is it just me or is that strip biased against blondes?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

EDIT: Never mind, not even worth the effort.

 

[Integral]

The US took down MegaUpload several months after it was declared a "rogue site" by the USTR.

Under SOPA, it would have fallen back in November.

@Anonymous: so this is what happens when you deny the Internet its free TV shows, music and movies.

 

[plarq]

Is it just me or is that strip biased against blondes?

How can a white-haired girl be a blonde?

 

[Skwink]

Way to give them more reasons to make laws like SOPA, Anon. It's like shooting a post office because of Gun Control laws.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Why do I have a feeling this is going to be counterproductive?

 

[BasketCase]

What SOPA would allow them to do is take it down without due process.

Nope. Didn't find that anywhere in SOPA. Though I did find a couple other things that are great ideas: immunity for web sites that voluntarily take action against copyright infringers, and proper avenues by which copyright holders are required to follow in order to file a grievance.

Side note: there's no violation of Freedom of Speech anywhere within SOPA. If you post praise for Wikileaks on Twitter, and the government shuts Twitter down, that's not a violation of Free Speech--however if the government arrests you for writing that tweet? That is a violation of Free Speech. The right to Free Speech does not give you the right to be heard; you are not entitled to a platform on which to speak your piece. If somebody wants to provide you a web site? Fine. If somebody wants to shut down the web site you write posts on? Tough.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Nope. Didn't find that anywhere in SOPA. Though I did find a couple other things that are great ideas: immunity for web sites that voluntarily take action against copyright infringers, and proper avenues by which copyright holders are required to follow in order to file a grievance.

Side note: there's no violation of Freedom of Speech anywhere within SOPA. If you post praise for Wikileaks on Twitter, and the government shuts Twitter down, that's not a violation of Free Speech--however if the government arrests you for writing that tweet? That is a violation of Free Speech. The right to Free Speech does not give you the right to be heard; you are not entitled to a platform on which to speak your piece. If somebody wants to provide you a web site? Fine. If somebody wants to shut down the web site you write posts on? Tough.

On the other hand. You own a small, private website. You post an essay about how the RIAA and MPAA sucks and must be disbanded. Your site is taken down, despite not breaking any laws and not hosting any copyright content. How is this not a freedom of speech issue? This is what could happen if SOPA is passed.

 

[CaptainF]

Nope. Didn't find that anywhere in SOPA. Though I did find a couple other things that are great ideas: immunity for web sites that voluntarily take action against copyright infringers, and proper avenues by which copyright holders are required to follow in order to file a grievance.

Side note: there's no violation of Freedom of Speech anywhere within SOPA. If you post praise for Wikileaks on Twitter, and the government shuts Twitter down, that's not a violation of Free Speech--however if the government arrests you for writing that tweet? That is a violation of Free Speech. The right to Free Speech does not give you the right to be heard; you are not entitled to a platform on which to speak your piece. If somebody wants to provide you a web site? Fine. If somebody wants to shut down the web site you write posts on? Tough.

The cognitive dissonance on display here goes beyond double-think, I'm thinking maybe "exponential-think".

 

[BasketCase]

On the other hand. You own a small, private website. You post an essay about how the RIAA and MPAA sucks and must be disbanded. Your site is taken down, despite not breaking any laws and not hosting any copyright content.

Tough beans. The DMV can do the same thing to your driver's license: they can take your license away, any time they please.

How is this not a freedom of speech issue?

Actually, the onus is on you to prove that it is a free speech issue. But I already answered this one. Nobody is required to reprint whatever you want to say.

The cognitive dissonance on display here goes beyond double-think, I'm thinking maybe "exponential-think".

[citation needed] Explain how it's cognitively dissonant.

 

[warpus]

Nope. Didn't find that anywhere in SOPA. Though I did find a couple other things that are great ideas: immunity for web sites that voluntarily take action against copyright infringers, and proper avenues by which copyright holders are required to follow in order to file a grievance.

Funny how you so conflidently say "nope".

... The sponsors of SOPA and PIPA appear to have ignored these concerns. Both bills allow the attorney general (and, in some cases, private parties—more on that later) to request a takedown of an overseas site based on the legal fiction that the website, rather than its owner, is the defendant. Because a website owner isn't technically a party to the case, the judge can issue an injunction before he has even heard the defendant's side of the case. And the attorney general can have the target website cut off from access to search engines, advertising networks, and credit card payments.

From google blog

“[SOPA] would grant new powers to law enforcement to filter the Internet and block access to tools to get around those filters. We know from experience that these powers are on the wish list of oppressive regimes throughout the world. SOPA and PIPA also eliminate due process. They provide incentives for American companies to shut down, block access to and stop servicing U.S. and foreign websites that copyright and trademark owners allege are illegal without any due process or ability of a wrongfully targeted website to seek restitution.”

Tough beans. The DMV can do the same thing to your driver's license: they can take your license away, any time they please.

And you don't see how that would stifle innovation? If the government had the power to shut down any website they want without due process.. Well.. how about this. You move to China where laws like that already exist, and you tell us how it is.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Hahaha, funny poster . Thing is though if that poster is continuosly pulled down, it could cause some trouble. Also, it's not like they don't have some expert hackers in Anonyomous who would actually attempt to hack the website.

Side note: there's no violation of Freedom of Speech anywhere within SOPA. If you post praise for Wikileaks on Twitter, and the government shuts Twitter down, that's not a violation of Free Speech--however if the government arrests you for writing that tweet? That is a violation of Free Speech. The right to Free Speech does not give you the right to be heard; you are not entitled to a platform on which to speak your piece. If somebody wants to provide you a web site? Fine. If somebody wants to shut down the web site you write posts on? Tough.

Yes but why do you say that's not a right, because the government said so? There was no internet when the Bill of Rights was written so if that's not a guaranteed right, it has been phased in. The could just as much said it's completely freedom of speech to say that on Twitter.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Tough beans. The DMV can do the same thing to your driver's license: they can take your license away, any time they please.


Actually, the onus is on you to prove that it is a free speech issue. But I already answered this one. Nobody is required to reprint whatever you want to say.

So it should be allowed because a different branch of government can do something completely unrelated?

I would say more but I do not want to get an infraction.