eBay Founder Pleads For Leniency For the PayPal 14 225
DavidGilbert99 writes "The founder of eBay, the parent company of PayPal, Pierre Omidyar has called on U.S. prosecutors to have mercy on the 14 members of Anonymous who are appearing in court this week facing up to 15 years in jail and a $500,000 fine for their part in a DDoS attack against PayPal in 2010. Despite thousands of Anons taking part, and most of the damage being done by two major botnets, the 14 are set to bear all the responsibility if U.S. prosecutors have their way."
Activism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately, guilt by direct association is r (Score:4, Insightful)
But it won't work that way. It's never really worked that way. Making things more illegal doesn't really put more hindrance on what people do compared to just being illegal, else we'd have the whole crack thing wrapped up by now.
"Tough on crime" is a moronic stance that doesn't address why people actually engage in crimes. A hint: very few people breaking the law are thinking rationally about consequences when they do.
Re:Activism (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a difference in views. People view blocking a street as free speech. They see people staging a sit-in as trying to raise awareness for their cause and the send a message.
DDoS, on the other hand, they view as vandalism (unfathomably severe vandalism, if these prosecutors are to be believed).
Objectively, I don't see much of a difference between a sit-in and a DDoS but that might just be because I understand what a DDoS is. Most people don't.
Re:Fuck Them (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless 10 000 people spray paint a town one night. If you catch a few of them (14 ?) and you know they only took a spray can and shot a few seconds (they did almost nothing vs the botnets), would you charge them for cleaning up the whole town ?
Re:Fuck Them (Score:5, Insightful)
If I choose to pay someone $5.5 million to put up a "no trespassing" sign and a chain link fence after getting hit by vandals, that doesn't mean the vandals cost me $5.5MM
If only they have incorporated..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then the 14 would only have to pay a small fine and admit no wrongdoing. Really, what they should have done was form their own bank if they wanted to steal money. I mean, look at Paypal, and they aren't even a bank!
Re:Fuck Them (Score:5, Insightful)
Spray painting a wall costs people time and money, and you know what, we don't drop fines that ruin peoples' lives over it.
We have zero tolerance for making companies lose money... now when companies or banks make us lose money (or homes), it just shows the system works (the way they designed it).
Re:Activism (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't see a difference because you aren't being objective.
A protest is people communicating some kind of a message in a public place. Sometimes it is inconvenient when they block streets, etc. A DDoS on the other hand is like guys in ski masks showing up at your shop, kicking in the doors, running off your customers and not allowing you to do business for as long as they are there.
Re:Activism (Score:5, Insightful)
Once a DDoS attack is completed (assuming that the sole action taken was DDoS and not defacement or intrusion), there is nothing to "clean up". When you stop, everyone picks up their "stuff" and walks away.
Re:Fuck Them (Score:3, Insightful)
If I steal £10 off someone in the street but then get caught a £10 fine won't put me off doing it again because I'm never worse off for doing it. £10 also isn't the real impact of my crime. Stealing the money may mean that my victim couldn't afford the bus and so lost 2 hours wages, they could feel unsafe in public, it could discourage other people from travelling to that area.
My crime, and the crimes of others, in combination have caused this and it is right that punishments consider it.
Re:Fuck Them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fuck Them (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an easier real world analogy than the one GP picked. If there's a city-wide riot and the police only are able to arrest a few people, do those few people have to pay for all of the damage done during the riot?
Re:history in motion, transiting from hooliganism (Score:4, Insightful)
are these 14 people the lead organizers or instigators of the ddos, or just some kids who thought it would be cool but didn't hide their tracks etc?
Re:history in motion, transiting from hooliganism (Score:5, Insightful)
They all used Anons ddos app. It doesn't disguise your IP or anything. The point of it is, this is supposed to be a type of protest. I doubt there were any leaders in this case. 1 dude just pointed the application at the target and everyone else just ran the client for a few minutes. It's insane that this is illegal. This should be entirely a civil matter. Your ISP should ban you or you should be subject to a civil suit. But criminal charges? This is clearly a protest. Sounds like it was a hippie protest to me, and I hate hippies. But if we throw them in jail for bitching now, what's going to happen to all us non-hippies when we decide to bitch?
Re:history in motion, transiting from hooliganism (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it would just be awesome to live in a world where websites could disappear without notice because some activist didn't like something they said.
I really don't get this mentality on slashdot that DDoS is civil disobedience. It isn't. It's censorship. A sit in allows the speaker to still be able to speak, a DDoS on the other hand is like the gestapo coming in and taking you away because you said something they didn't like. If there was no recourse for it, then how the fuck is the internet supposed to last long term? And worse is that it won't be just the people you like doing it against the people you don't like. Imagine the RIAA/MPAA DDoSing every website that had a picture of Johnny Depp in a pirate suit. If you think anonymous DDoS'es are effective, wait until somebody with actual resources does it. Right now it doesn't happen because people with actual resources other than two-bit botnets are quite visible and have to obey the law, much as I think everybody else should. And on that same token anonymous should never be above the law.
Re:history in motion, transiting from hooliganism (Score:2, Insightful)
Either way it's wrong. You don't go bring down some website like the gestapo just because they say something you don't like.
Re:history in motion, transiting from hooliganism (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who protested elsewhere and disturbed other people should get 15 years in jail and a $500,000 fine.
What a wonderful "Black or White" world that would be right?
Re:history in motion, transiting from hooliganism (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say I send a strongly worded letter of protest to the NYSE stock exchange. Is this illegal? Now suppose 9,999,999 other people also send similar letters, and the stock exchange is so full of them the personnel can't get in, taking it offline. Am I now a criminal? What if I knew those 9,999,999 other people were going to be sending their letters at the same time, and the combined effect would take the exchange down. Does that make me a criminal, and if it does, should I bear the full responsibility of the combined effect?
In other words: is it just to blame a single snowlake for the entire avalanche?
For that matter, does that matter? Sending someone to jail for 15 years for causing a minor inconvenience is an absurd overreaction. I suspect this is not about justice or even the law but power: someone is feeling theirs threatened and is breaking out the jackboot.
Re:history in motion, transiting from hooliganism (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree w/ the GP. It's reasonable that this is illegal, but ... "up to 15 years in jail and a $500,000 fine" is insane. Get a good lawyer, and you can probably get away with less for murder. Armed robbery? Piece of cake. Yes I know they haven't been sentenced yet, but just the threat of sentences like that is absurd. It takes it from the government prosecuting a crime (in which no one was injured and even the founder of the "victim" company is asking for leniency) to the government saying "we can do whatever we like to you". Whole different animal. The first is a legitimate function of the government, and the latter is a step towards authoritarianism.
As for damage, FTA:
PayPal's website was down for an hour on 8 December and another brief period on 9 December. The company estimates the damage caused by the attack was $5.5 million
That $5.5M was probably calculated in the absurd way that such business losses are usually calculated. For example, if someone steals the source to a proprietary OS, then even if they do nothing with it, the "cost" is calculated as the entire cost of developing the OS. Right, they never made any sales and will never make any sales in the future.
The selective prosecution aspect of it is absurd too. Forget the fact that they're only prosecuting 14 of the participants. Search on "William K. Black". Far from being some fringe character, he was a major official the the OCC (Office of the Controller of the Currency - one of the banking regulators) when the S&L crisis blew up. He helped establish the case law on control fraud, and they obtained over 1000 criminal convictions. He's the ultimate "been there, done that, hence speak with authority" kind of guy. According to Black (many other knowledgeable people think this as well), the more recent financial meltdown, which makes the S&L crisis look like petty theft, has all the hallmarks of the same type of control fraud. Number of convictions for control fraud: 0. Number of attempted prosecutions: 0. Now that's selective. You don't really expect me to have any respect for federal prosecutors, or more importantly their past or current bosses, do you?