Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Music Piracy The Internet

Anonymous Knocks Out Ministry of Sound Website 240

Posted by samzenpus
from the pirates-of-the-european dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The latest DDoS attack from Anonymous has knocked offline UK solicitor Gallant Macmillian's website, the Ministry of Sound Website and their payment website. Macmillian is currently looking for several hundred identities of suspected file-sharers, accused of uploading artists under the Ministry of Sound label."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Knocks Out Ministry of Sound Website

Comments Filter:
  • OMG (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 04, 2010 @12:38AM (#33781456)

    Goofus killed Gallant.

  • by PaulBu (473180) on Monday October 04, 2010 @12:41AM (#33781466) Homepage

    That UK actually has an official Ministry of Sound (as in, Govt. agency) ! :)

    Paul B.

    • by zill (1690130) on Monday October 04, 2010 @12:54AM (#33781554)
      Are there any laws governing what you can legally name your organization?

      Can I register a corporation under the name "Federal government of the United States"?
      • by Jesse_vd (821123) on Monday October 04, 2010 @01:21AM (#33781656)

        It worked out pretty well for the Federal Reserve

        • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Monday October 04, 2010 @02:44AM (#33782018)
          We've a scam company here in the UK called London Mint Office. It's not affiliated with the real mint at all, but somehow they get away with it. It's just on the right side of legal - the standard 'didn't read the small print,' where the customer is offered what looks like a good deal on a product (A commorative coin) but isn't clearly told that in accepting the agreement they are also agreeing to be direct-debited for a case full of overpriced junk coins every month... and the only way to get out of the deal is via a phone line that is always unavailable.
          • by Chrisq (894406) on Monday October 04, 2010 @05:09AM (#33782476)

            We've a scam company here in the UK called London Mint Office. It's not affiliated with the real mint at all, but somehow they get away with it. It's just on the right side of legal - the standard 'didn't read the small print,' where the customer is offered what looks like a good deal on a product (A commorative coin) but isn't clearly told that in accepting the agreement they are also agreeing to be direct-debited for a case full of overpriced junk coins every month... and the only way to get out of the deal is via a phone line that is always unavailable.

            If its a direct debit then it is clearly not the only way. Cancel your direct debit - most banks let you do it online.

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by Jedi Alec (258881)

              Which would be a breach of contract if they play their cards right, leaving you even more fucked up than in the previous situation.

              • by Chrisq (894406) on Monday October 04, 2010 @06:33AM (#33782800)

                Which would be a breach of contract if they play their cards right, leaving you even more fucked up than in the previous situation.

                Not if key details of the contract were only in the fine print, and the cancellation number unavailable. You would have two defences: 1) The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, and 2) You made reasonable attempts to notify the company about the cancellation.

                I would be very surprised if they even took you as far as the court for that.

          • by Moryath (553296)

            Hey, we have one here in the US! They call themselves the "New York Mint" and claim they are constantly "unearthing" rare/valuable coins from hidden treasure troves, old swiss bank vaults, etc.

          • by NightHwk1 (172799)

            There's one here in the US called the Franklin Mint that does the same thing.

        • by zoloto (586738)
          and federal express
      • by cappp (1822388) on Monday October 04, 2010 @01:45AM (#33781752)
        There are loads of laws that are applicable. Trademark and obscenity are likely to be the ones you run into most - try registering Fucking Microsoft for instance - but there's also a bunch of regulations controlling the use of characters, abbreviations, and all of that. I did a quick search and found a great list [companieshouse.gov.uk] of British restrictions on specific terms including

        Accredited, Auditor General for Wales, Bank, British, House of Lords, University,

        and so on. A general rule of thumb - if it has the potential to mislead you probably need to get some permission.

      • by arivanov (12034) on Monday October 04, 2010 @02:58AM (#33782062) Homepage

        Depends on the country.

        15+ years ago the current Bulgarian prime minister business was called "First Private Police". That was in the first years after the fall of the berlin wall and funnily enough they were more efficient and less corrupt than the police proper. IIRC the ministry of the interior tried to sue them for trademarke infringment and failed. So they started stopping their cars for 2h checks every time they had to attend to an incident in progress, arrest their staff for nealry anything and so on until they forced a name change.

        So it depends. The government has "its ways". Now are they going to apply them is a different matter

      • by dargaud (518470) <<ten.duagradg> <ta> <2todhsals>> on Monday October 04, 2010 @05:16AM (#33782500) Homepage

        Are there any laws governing what you can legally name your organization? Can I register a corporation under the name "Federal government of the United States"?

        Years ago in France a guy did name his company "Trésor Publicité". A perfectly good name. Except that he used it to cash intercepted checks intended for the "Trésor Public" [the french revenue service], just adding the 3 letters at the end. Guess how that worked out for him... Hint: never steal money from thieves, they don't take kindly to it.

      • Are there any laws governing what you can legally name your organization?

        Yes, quite a few. In the UK, terms like Royal aren't allowed (except by royal appointment, I suppose). Probably in all countries, the official prefixes/suffixes for Limited companies (Ltd, PLC, Inc, etc.) aren't allowed if your company doesn't fit that description.

      • by DrXym (126579) on Monday October 04, 2010 @06:45AM (#33782854)
        Are there any laws governing what you can legally name your organization?

        In Britain there are naming rules [companieshouse.gov.uk] that require names be unique, none infringing, don't imply a connection to government or royalty, are not offensive, or confusing (e.g. Limited ltd). There are certain additional rules when you include words like Vet, Doctor, Solicitor etc. in your company name.

        Even with the rules it doesn't stop some scummy ambulance chasing companies trying to pass themselves off as official sounding accident boards and such like.

      • by imakemusic (1164993) on Monday October 04, 2010 @10:03AM (#33783624)

        When Railtrack Plc - the company that ran the British railway system - was sold to Network Rail, the name Railtrack became available at Companies House. Some enterprising bloke registered Railtrack Ltd and proceeded to mess people about by answering their letters [fitlads.net] (PDF). Worth a read.

    • by jaweekes (938376)

      It's a sillier name than the Ministry of Silly Walks.
      Sorry, but I had to get Python in there somewhere...

    • by PatPending (953482) on Monday October 04, 2010 @01:56AM (#33781814)
      Yup; it's located next to the Ministry of Silly Walks
  • by kurokame (1764228) on Monday October 04, 2010 @12:43AM (#33781482)
    Next time point your blasters at Miniluv first. Now you get a happy fun trip to Room 101!
  • by G3ckoG33k (647276) on Monday October 04, 2010 @12:46AM (#33781508)

    Hope this was what the terrorist attack US warned about yesterday. It seemed pretty restricted then.

  • by yamamushi (903955) <yamamushiNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 04, 2010 @12:51AM (#33781528) Homepage
    Ministry of Sound has been struggling a lot lately, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/ministry-of-sound-threat [guardian.co.uk] . They haven't really stayed relevant in the electronic music world lately, so it won't be a big loss to see them disappear in the near future irregardless of file sharers. As a music producer and dj here in Austin, I feel obligated to buy the music I play and remix (mainly because I'm friends with producers who've burned that unspoken respect into my style, Francis Preve, Josh Gabriel, etc.). When labels go out of their way to pursue file sharers, I feel obligated to go out of my way to find their tracks through non-conventional methods. Not everyone has money to dish out for music, but they will pay to go to shows, clubs, raves, etc. Let them appreciate the art! When was the last time Ministry of Sound put out a track that reached the top 10 charts on beatport.com ? When was the last time Toolroom Knights did? Music evolves, and it feels like they pressed the B button to hold themselves back on purpose.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Yvan256 (722131)

      They should have pressed up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A instead.

    • by lightversusdark (922292) on Monday October 04, 2010 @01:54AM (#33781810) Journal

      Ministry of Sound is still one of the better clubs in London, especially with the closure of Matter, so they are still providing a venue for shows, clubs, raves, etc. The better promoters prefer Fabric as it's not as "corporate" as the others.
      The brand itself has been diluted to worthlessness. You can get MoS branded alarm clocks and iPod docks FFS.
      The label, while being the biggest indie label in the world, just churns out compilations - The Annual, Best of Happy Hardcore volume 40 etc.
      The company does still release credible records, but they are all on imprints like Hed Kandi and particularly Data Records. Eric Prydz is at the top of his game, and Example is riding high in the charts.
      Palumbo is a businessman, and that he would jump on the opportunity to screw a few more pennies out of file-sharers doesn't surprise me in the least.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Your average MoS compilation is bus compressed so hard that I don't dare subject my amps to it, go anywhere near the clip light with that stuff and you know your spending a significant fraction of your time putting out DC.

        Captcha was compress, creepy

        • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

          by BancBoy (578080) on Monday October 04, 2010 @03:59AM (#33782230)

          Your average MoS compilation is bus compressed so hard that I don't dare subject my amps to it, go anywhere near the clip light with that stuff and you know your spending a significant fraction of your time putting out DC.

          Wow! I don't know what half that meant, but it sounded damn insightful!

          • Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)

            by Nerdfest (867930) on Monday October 04, 2010 @06:22AM (#33782752)
            "Every sound in the recording (even the ones that should be quiet) are amplified to a high level. If this level is too close to the point on a VU meter that indicates the amp will lose the tops of the waveforms (clip them off) the output signal will look like a flat line, or DC voltage. This is hard on amplifiers." I feel like the "English Sound Engineer" version of "English 50 Cent".

            Hope I actually got it close to correct.
            • Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)

              by Vryl (31994) on Monday October 04, 2010 @08:47AM (#33783426) Journal

              Mostly correct. Describing "compression" as "amplification" is arguably correct, but doesn't tell the full story, even tho you correctly point out the soft sounds.

              Compression basically makes the soft sounds louder, and/or the loud sounds softer so there is less dynamic range in the music - that is, the difference between the soft and loud noises is made smaller, or even much smaller.

              The result is that the music sounds "louder", but you can lose a lot of the "feel" of a track.

              It also uses more energy, and drives your amp and then your speakers much harder, and hotter.

              But hey, that is a ton more words than you used, and someone will pick holes in this version too.

              Yours is pretty darn good, for a paraphrase to non sound geeks.

      • by dargaud (518470)
        I once purchased a Ministry of Sound CD thinking it was some new or bootleg Ministry and was left wondering what all that Garbage of Sound was.
      • by Inda (580031)
        How can you say that? MoS helped kill the house scene.

        We went there a few times around '98, '99, 2000. Travelled 150 miles to get there, names on the door and all that stuff. The place was about dressing up, not the music or the scene.

        One time we were upstairs, in a tiny room, and the local DJ was banging. But becuase MoS was not full, it wasn't creating the desired atmosphere so the heavies kicked us out onto a shoulder to shoulder main dancefloor. Bang out of order. We never went back.

        The Cross near Kings
    • Heck, what does "irregardless" mean? Multiple negatives in one word is too much for my brain...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 04, 2010 @01:06AM (#33781598)

    It's nice to see kids these days cooperating with each other to make the world a better place.

  • by Securityemo (1407943) on Monday October 04, 2010 @01:12AM (#33781616) Journal
    From a purely digital pyromania perspective (I am not a participant in this, but I like to watch things burn) it would be much more fun if the internal networks and personal computers of these organizations where infiltrated (and counterattacks mounted by hired crackers, of course.) Why doesn't this happen? Would we ever know if it had? (I think we would, actually, as long as the attack was detected.) Is it a question of competence or cowardice? These ineffectual DDOS attacks are getting boring. ;_;
    • What would be the most amusingly effective is to infiltrate the computers of these organizations and start running filesharing software on them handing out copies of stuff that you just know the MPAA, RIAA or some other organization is going to be really hot about.

      Explaining to a judge how their filesharing was totally innocent even though their IP addresses were flagged would be really fun to watch. Also, in 3-strikes jurisdictions, watching their ISPs kick them off the net would also be huge fun.

      • It would be thrown out. I do however see some potential for disrupting the personal lives of the people actually in the organization. Collateral damage should be easy to control as long as the attacker has access to internal communication, yes?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mpe (36238)
        What would be the most amusingly effective is to infiltrate the computers of these organizations and start running filesharing software on them handing out copies of stuff that you just know the MPAA, RIAA or some other organization is going to be really hot about.

        Would you need to? It's not like much evidence appears to be required to accuse a member of the public. Also the MPAA has already been caught "pirating" a movie and software (OSS which takes some serious effort to pirate).

        Explaining to a judge
  • This isn't helping (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Omnifarious (11933) * <eric-slash@omERD ... g minus math_god> on Monday October 04, 2010 @01:13AM (#33781618) Homepage Journal

    I have a lot more respect for the Pirate Party than these Anonymous DDOS attacks. Though I guess I didn't mind too much when they turn-abouts-fair-played the one company awhile back. Ultimately though, resorting to the same tactics as RIAA or whatever other group doesn't help anybody and just makes the attempt to get lawmakers to see reason even more difficult. :-(

    • "and just makes the attempt to get lawmakers to see reason even more difficult"

      Then they'll just piss more people off. If they remove even more freedoms, they might even alert the average idiot. Then again, I doubt they would do anything, as most people don't even know how to fight for their rights anymore, or care to do so. Some of them even think that breaking the law is always 'bad', I'm willing to bet.

      • by Nursie (632944) on Monday October 04, 2010 @02:21AM (#33781920)

        'Some of them even think that breaking the law is always 'bad', I'm willing to bet."

        SOME?

        I went on a tour of Alcatraz a few years back, and the guide stopped to explain how the island had been taken over by students/protestors after it had closed as a prison, as a protest about the disenfranchisement of the Native American populations.

        It was when she said "And sometimes when we look back from many years afterwards, we can see that (very rarely) breaking the law might be justified or at least we can try to understand their motivations".

        That shocked me. That it needed to be spelled out that clearly to some people, that sometimes people break the law for the right reasons, not because they're just hippie scum. It was then that I realised how straight-and-narrow a lot of folks see life. I don't know if they just don't think for themselves or if the buy all the bullshit or what. A lot of people won't even disagree with the government.

        Hell, in the UK I heard people say "well if the government tell us we need to go to war in Iraq, then we must need to, it's not like they'd do it for no reason". Now I don't care which side of the should we/shouldn't we debate on iraq you come down on, the government's duty is to prove to the population that invasion of a foreign country is necessary. And the people's duty is to look at and question that proof.

        bah. "Sheeple" is an overused cliche, but I truly believe it fits for a lot of people.

        • "the government's duty is to prove to the population that invasion of a foreign country is necessary"

          The government's duty is to obey the people. If the government can make drastic decisions such as this without the consent of a majority of the people, we will keep seeing the same corruption and stupidity that plagues us currently.

          "but I truly believe it fits for a lot of people."

          99%, I'd say.

          • by horza (87255)

            There is a reason elections are only every few years, as if the government had to obey every daily opinion poll nothing would get done.

            If you really believe people are 'sheeple', then you would know that if every major decision required the consent of the people then Rupert Murdoch would effectively run the country.

            It's tough finding a balance between continuity and accountability, but the current version we have is not perfect but not too bad either.

            Phillip.

        • A tour-guide for alcatraz might have been a somewhat self-selecting sample. But I agree with you. Some sympathy must be had with the people who think "If i just do everything right, I'm a good person and everything will be okay."
        • by delinear (991444)
          More than a million people turned up in London to protest the war in Iraq, I'm pretty sure it was the biggest single protest the country has ever seen, so I think you're being a little quick to toss out the sheeple cliché (albeit the government just ignored their wishes anyway, which is the really sickening part - they complain about voter apathy but when a significant portion of the country turns up to make their views heard on a subject and are ignored, why should voters be anything but).
        • by Culture20 (968837)

          bah. "Sheeple" is an overused cliche, but I truly believe it fits for a lot of people

          baaaaaaah, humbug.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by kevinNCSU (1531307)

          went on a tour of Alcatraz a few years back, and the guide stopped to explain how the island had been taken over by students/protestors after it had closed as a prison,

          Ah, those were the days of REAL protesters when they put THEMSELVES in jail. These spineless wannabe protesters these days want the government to do that for them too.

      • by mlts (1038732) *

        This is a nasty feedback loop. I can see laws being passed in the UK out of knee-jerk reaction which will make life worse for every UK citizen. Perhaps nationwide NAC forcing people to type in their ID number before they get the ability to send packets out? Couple this with large prison sentences for tampering/removing the software.

        There are universities which not just block traffic, but use NAC to force software to be installed on any computers connected. This software not just blocks creation of VPNs

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

      I agree, but it gets the issue in the news. Eventually people start asking why they keep doing this, and knowledgeable people should be able to reply with decent, neutral information about copyright problems, enforcement by barratry, settlement letters and why they put the little guy at risk. Add on things like these are the same companies responsible for DRM (can't copy your music where you want to) and levies on blank media used for non-infringing purposes (backup, pictures, your own legally purchased C

    • by Rogerborg (306625)
      Their goal isn't to help, and they don't care about your respect, or mine. Let's be clear that they're doing it for the lulz, and short of tracking them all down and kicking them in their tiny shrivelled nutsacks, the only way to get them to stop is to throw a shiny ball in the other direction.
    • by Tom (822) on Monday October 04, 2010 @10:34AM (#33783860) Homepage Journal

      The copyright lobby is using every conceivable way of defending their position. Legal, doubtfully legal, illegal. Against the masses, against individuals. Changing laws, creating new laws, ignoring laws.

      It's only fair to reply in kind, using several different ways. Lobby counter-work is important, as is legal support for the innocents caught in the net, as is legal support for the guilty so that they get a fair trial and a fair punishment and not these ridiculous witch-burnings. Technological counters to protect our privacy against the dragnets are important, and at times a counter-attack can reveal what legal activities would have never managed to uncover - as in this case.

      I, too, support the Pirate Party more than a DDoS. Which is why I'm a member of my local PP chapter, but not of Anonymous. But that doesn't mean I don't like what they're doing.

      And frankly, the press articles on this and the revelations about the dirty tricks played by those who label themselves the righteous are a lot more likely to change public opinion and then maybe politicians' minds than the most civilized and measured talking.

      You can not win against a trained slimebag with words alone. You are going up against people who have been lying professionally for many years, and the truth is harder to convince people with, because it is more complex, less black-and-white, and usually incomplete. A clear, simple and well-rounded lie will always beat it. Everything else is the stuff of books and movies, but not the real world.

  • Yeah well (Score:2, Informative)

    by oldmac31310 (1845668)
    Get some free music and share my stuff here. I didn't RTFA and don't really care. Suing people over music is just a bonehead thing to do. See my sig and it will lead you to many musical delights - and horrors!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I had to read the summary 3 times before I actually understood what transpired. It would be nice if:
    a)You explained what Anonymous was(is it a group? an unknown attacker? A kind of bug spray?)
    b)You explained what the Ministry of Sound is.
    c)You didn't repeat the word "website" 3 times in one sentence.
    • by MichaelSmith (789609) on Monday October 04, 2010 @01:28AM (#33781696) Homepage Journal

      It would be nice if:
      a)You explained what Anonymous was(is it a group? an unknown attacker? A kind of bug spray?)

      Its you!

      • Right on the money. Anonymous is the internet mob, made up of rather random individuals that a lot like normal on the street protesters decide that a particular entity is being an ass and make it a little bit difficult to do their business by creating a small scale blockade at their entrance for a day. Nothing new or specially nefarious about it, just a normal social dynamic happening on the internet. The targeted entities should deduct from this that they are not winning any fans and if greed allows just t
    • "c)You didn't repeat the word "website" 3 times in one sentence."

      It's a word. Was it used correctly? If so, it's fine.

      • It is poor writing to repeat terms in close succession. Grammatically correct, but stylistically weak. One can almost always find ways to convey the same information without redundancy.

    • I had to read the summary 3 times before I actually understood what transpired. It would be nice if:

      a)You explained what Anonymous was(is it a group? an unknown attacker? A kind of bug spray?)

      http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=anonymous [lmgtfy.com]

      b)You explained what the Ministry of Sound is.

      http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=ministry+of+sound [lmgtfy.com]

  • It's Gallant Macmillan, not Gallant Macmillian.

    Now get off my lawn.

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Monday October 04, 2010 @03:02AM (#33782074) Journal
    This is stupid. It is just a gadfly and nothing more. They will simply swat it away.
    Instead, it makes far more sense to run through their various servers and locate evidence of illegal actions taken on the part or in behalf of the publishing companies. The simple fact is, that crackers could do a real service by locating evidence of how many illegal actions these companies have taken (and yes, they ALL have ). Then get lawyers to sue these companies AND INDIVIDUALS. Once a few of them go to prison, I suspect that attitudes will change.
    • by Spliffster (755587) on Monday October 04, 2010 @05:25AM (#33782536) Homepage Journal

      Well, it seems to have worked against ACS Law, the domain does not resolve anymore (since ca. 29. Oct). http://acs-law.org.uk/ [acs-law.org.uk]

      It is very likely that ACS Law will go out of business for doing their shady "porn" extortion. After/During that attack, some 200MB of emails "leaked" which will put the last nail in their coffin: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5850493/ACS-Law_leaked_emails [thepiratebay.org]

      • by Aceticon (140883)

        In fact, seeing more and more of the mainstream media in the UK dedicating full pages to stories about old-ladies accused by ACS:Law of sharing Porn is way beyond entertaining.

        This is creating a really bad perception in people's mind's about copyright enforcement so much so that "media figures" have spoken agains the way ACS:Law does business - talk about damage control.

        I can't wait for the first grandmothers getting disconnected from the Net thanks to the Digital Economy Act or even better, threatned by th

  • by jimicus (737525) on Monday October 04, 2010 @05:54AM (#33782648)

    If anyone honestly believes that this is going to result in the various record labels worldwide finally throwing their hands up and saying "Enough! We give up", they're living in cloud cuckoo land. Far more likely it'll lead to much tighter regulation of the Internet in many first-world countries.

    After all, we already have "three-strikes and you're out" laws in many countries, and those strikes frequently don't require any sort of due process. Plenty of governments have hinted by their actions that they rather like the idea of a tightly-controlled Internet where everyone does as they are damn well told or faces the consequences, this kind of thing could be all the justification they need to tighten the screw a little further.

    Of course, it won't be painted in that fashion. It'll be painted as "Cyber-attacks cost businesses millions of ${CURRENCY} a year in lost revenue, this law will force ISPs to automatically detect and shut-off the Internet connection of anyone launching such an attack".

  • How is this not a terrorist act? Sure, one guy's terrorist is another guy's freedom fighter, but attacking sites one disagrees with is still terrorism, whether it's done with bombs or botnets.

    • by selven (1556643)

      They attacked the MOS's pay site, which "seems to be a portal to buy authorized copies of artists under the Ministry of Sound label. This is an interesting escalation in the ongoing conflict, as it directly attacks the MOS's ability to sell music". Terrorism is, by definition, when you hit something as a publicity stunt, like the attack on mpaa.org. This is intended primarily to harm their bottom line, thus making it plain old guerrilla warfare.

      • by airfoobar (1853132) on Monday October 04, 2010 @07:15AM (#33782956)

        Terrorism, by the contemporary meaning of the word at least, involves blowing shit up. Thankfully, other than a prank bomb threat, that is not the case here.

        4chan's goal is not to terrorise, but to harass in order to be heard. In other words, it's no different than a real-world protest, where they stand outside the company's building and throw eggs and yogurt at everyone who dares come out, thus disrupting their business. It's a sad truth today that if consumers don't organise and hurt a company's wallet, they'll be totally ignored -- tell me that isn't true.

        I would normally feel bad about the companies that are at the sharp end of all this, but I don't. At all. They totally deserve everything they get.

    • Really? This website being taken off-line for a little while actually caused you to feel a sense of terror for your life? Did you become afraid to purchase MoS albums because Anonymous might DDoS you?

      This is protest. Big difference. If you agree with it or not, it is not something that is even anywhere close to being in the same league as terrorism.

    • by plover (150551) *

      Terror is an emotion that someone feels when they believe they are about to lose their life or the life of a loved one due to an external cause over which they have no control. The whole definition is important, not just the "have no control" part. Note that it doesn't exclude non-criminal acts, and does not require the external cause to be anonymous or even a person. You can feel terror hanging over a cliff.

      Note that making a router's WAN light blink incessantly would not qualify on several levels.

      If a T

    • by imakemusic (1164993) on Monday October 04, 2010 @10:37AM (#33783888)

      Absolutely. It was terrifying. The prospect of not being able to buy the latest remix of Unce-unce-unce-unce shook my soul to its very core. I will be having sleepless nights for months to come. I worried about my family and my friends getting caught in the denial of service or getting wounded in the crossfire. "Never again", I thought to myself, "will my people be free to listen this mindless horseshit without fear of a slight delay because they can't buy it online and will have to walk to the shop or get it from a different website." Pure terror. I wanted to stand up to these evil people but I was scared so I just sat there, quietly leaking bodily fluids.

    • attacking sites one disagrees with is still terrorism, whether it's done with bombs or botnets.

      No, it's not.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HeckRuler (1369601)
      Because instead of being killed, maimed, and/or TERRIFIED, people were inconvenienced and possibly put out of a few sales, for a while.
      Jaywalking is not an act of dissent due to it's scale. It's just not serious enough to qualify. A DDOS, to a music store, does not terrorism make. Even if they had thrown a brick into their window, it's still not terrorism.

      Ease up on that trigger grandpa.

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.

Working...