Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
News Your Rights Online

Raisethefist.com Raided 883

mfb and others wrote in about a raid on the operator of raisethefist.com last week. It was first reported on Indymedia.org here and here, followed by an LA Weekly article. By far the best news piece so far is this one from Newsbytes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Raisethefist.com Raided

Comments Filter:
  • by kingdon ( 220100 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @02:55PM (#2932130) Homepage

    OK, this guy says that he was busted because the government didn't like his opinions, but in fact he had been cracking web sites and putting in that troop.cgi thing. Somehow that doesn't sound like an opinion to me. There's also the question of bomb-making information which is potentially thornier, but also isn't really opinion (at least, not opinion about globalization - opinion about bomb policy I suppose might be a bit more debateable).

    • Yeah doesn't like an opinion to me either. Sounds like criminal activity, which appears to be dealt with properly.

      Dunno how this gets put on slashdot as "news for nerds, stuff that MATTERS".
      • by Derkec ( 463377 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:12PM (#2932287)

        I could see his arguement. He's going to jail because of his opinion that it was ok to crack into other people's pages, deface them and try to attack army computers. Since he acted on his opinion and violated various laws, he's pretty much screwed. The guy clearly is out of touch with reality if he expects the police to knock on the door of an anti-government type and nicely ask, "I'm sorry, but could we have your computer?"

        Regarding what I assume will be a 1st amendment type of defense. You can speak freely so long as you don't trample of the rights of others. When you facilitate and encourage the use of weapons to hurt people or property you are outside of 1st amend. protection. Likewise when you deface a website to get your message across, your efforts to communicate have come at the expense of someone else's right to do the same and so aren't protected.

        • by MrResistor ( 120588 ) <peterahoff@noSPAM.gmail.com> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:05PM (#2932807) Homepage
          Well put.

          Your right to swing your fist ends at my face.

          How can someone advocate violent overthrow of the government and expect the government to look the other way? There are better ways to affect change if you don't like the way things are going, and they're built into the Constitution! Being a punk myself, I used to hang out with a lot of anti-corporate anarchists and this has always been my main disagreement with them (second is the irony that the vast majority are smokers and thus enslaved to the tobacco industry, but that's a whole other issue).

          Reading the Newsbytes article, I can't help but come to the conclusion that this kid is just another one of those moronic LA "Bring It All Down"(TM) punks, totally oblivious to the fact that The Man is the only thing keeping the skinheads from beating the crap out of him and stealing the oxblood 20-eye Doc Martins his mom bought him for his birthday.

          Sorry, that turned into more of a rant than I thought it would.

          • by nomadic ( 141991 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .dlrowcidamon.> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:14PM (#2932884) Homepage
            I consider myself very strong to the left, but I've been running into these types myself, and all they do is scare people into moving to the right. They're more interested in indulging their own satisfaction at being "rebels" than in actually effecting any social changes.
          • by Liberal Mafia ( 544475 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @08:01PM (#2934630) Homepage
            >>How can someone advocate violent overthrow of the government and expect the government to look the other way?

            Well, regardless of what Sherman expects, for the past half century the Supreme Court has routinely expected the government to do just that. The phrase that applies here is "clear and present danger".

            The phrase first came about in 1919 from the Schenck v. United States case. But it didn't really have any teeth until 1957 and Yates v. United States, when the Court ruled that, to quote my old book on the law of public communications, "a conspiracy to advocate the overthrow of the government was too far removed from immediate danger to be punished."

            The real precedent used nowadays is Brandenburg v. Ohio, (1969) in which the Court overturned the conviction of some KKK members for advocating "unlawful methods of industrial or political reform", then a crime under Ohio state law. To be constitutional, the Court said, a statute can only ban speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such actions."

            The Court backed this precedent up in 1973 with Hess v. Indiana, in which an antiwar demonstrator had been convicted for shouting "We'll take the fucking street later." The Court ruled that this "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time".

            So, unless what Sherman put up on the Web was really both meant and likely to produce immediate illegal action, or the current Supreme Court is ready to overturn this precedent (very possible, given its obvious partisanship and corruption), he hasn't broken the law by advocating overthrowing the federal government.

            I'm sure these rulings are on the Web somewhere but I'm too tired to karma whore any further just now.
      • it does matter (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Pope ( 17780 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:34PM (#2932501)
        Well, OK, I think it matters.
        There are lots of articles on Slash about different countries taking away their citizens' rights, based on the assumption that if some information's on the net it's far more dangerous than if it's simply in print.

        This is a tech-savvy activist, using the internet as his tool to get his message out to the world. Bravo.

        However he crossed the line a number of times by hacking other machines, using a pretty lame-ass excuse: "I had to get my message out!" Sure, Charlie, I have a feeling you're preaching to the converted.

        I had an argument with a coworker last summer during the WTO conference (or was it G8? I can't remember). An anti-corporate web site was giving out information and software to stage a "virtual sit-in" to protest against companies involved. Basically, they were advocating a gigantic DDOS against a certain few companies, including Cisco, one of our clients.

        He thought it was cool, I thought the entire thing was 100% lame: WTF do they hope to accomplish my not letting me do my work? Are they somehow more important than me? Does their "message" get out by DDOSing a few companies? No. They'd be better off by actually writing letter to the companies they hate, but of course, that takes actual time and effort. It takes little to download someone else's work (the DDOS programs) and run it, then go back to whatever you were doing, thinking you've accomplished some great blow for democracy.

        I don't buy it one bit: it's lame, far too easy and cowardly.

        So I propsed that on the date and time they went to put up their links page to all the DDOS software, we hit THEM first, in a pre-emptive strike, just to give 'em a taste of their own medicine and see how much they like. But we didn't. I would have had a good laugh though, I just didn't want to sink to their chickenshit level.

        Ah well. I'm glad this guy got arrested for his hacking crimes, I just hope they don't pull a Mitnick and give him his fair chance. Doubt it.
    • Yeah (Score:4, Funny)

      by SimonK ( 7722 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @05:59PM (#2933852)
      I was imprisoned for my beliefs. I believed I wouldn't get caught.
  • Hun? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Quasar1999 ( 520073 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @02:56PM (#2932132) Journal
    In yet another successfull attempt to silence our vioces, Raisethefist.com, an anarchist/activist independent media/collective has been shut down by the secret service.

    Secret service? They ain't doing a good job if slashdot knows... :P
    • by fm6 ( 162816 )
      It's only called the Secret Service. In addition to keeping W alive, they have jurisdiction over counterfeiting and some computer "trespass" crimes.

      The first time I ever heard of them was when JFK was killed. The name was so incongruous, some people who hadn't heard of them before didn't realize that their role was bodyguard, not assasin.

      They are the oldest federal law enforcement agency, dating back the 1870s. I've never researched it, but I've often suspected that their name is a kind of euphimism. States rights was the biggest issue in those days (you may have heard about the Civil War), so "Secret Service" may have been easier to sell than "Treasury Police".

  • by parliboy ( 233658 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {yobilrap}> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @02:59PM (#2932161) Homepage
    From the newsbytes article: On three of the sites, Austin left behind a hacking program named troop.cgi that was designed to attempt to log in to a computer operated by the U.S. Army, the FBI affidavit stated.

    In the interview, Austin acknowledged that he vandalized the Web sites and that he knew it was illegal to do so. But he defended the act by saying it was necessary to get his message out.


    "If I go to jail, then I will go to jail not based on my actions, but based on what I think," he said.

    No, you incredibly idiotic dipshit. You are going to be Bubba's bitch because you hacked government websites, and in fact admitted it. Please, don't try to defend him -- it's guys like this that give us a bad name and deserved to be ostracized from the community at large.

  • Overkill? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Gardener ( 519078 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:00PM (#2932171) Homepage

    "People can rant and rave on the Internet all they want, but when they cross the line of calling people to action to violently overthrow the Constitution of the United States, they have a problem," said McLaughlin.

    So when just another lone hacker kid defaces five Web sites, it justifies "surrounding and raiding [the] house with machine guns, shotguns, bullet-proof vests." Being labeled a hacker (correctly, this time) is really getting to be as dangerous as being called a child molester.

    The Gardener

    • Actually, I don't think the would have come in so heavily armed if it was just a child molester. :^)
    • Re:Overkill? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Stonehand ( 71085 )
      Given that he also disseminated information about the design of explosives and advocated the violent overthrow of the government, it makes one heck of a lot of sense. He might have been a nutcase who actually was ready to practice what he preached, rather than the digital equivalent of a delusional graffiti artist.
    • Re:Overkill? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by clarkgoble ( 241742 )
      He was a hacker who promoted explosives and violence. Further he was a hacker who was promoting the violent overthrow of the government. No offense, but the police would have been idiots to go in unarmed. It's not like they used the weapons. The arrest went well. But they didn't know that.

      What if it turned out the kind had schitzophrenic and was armed with those bombs that he was publishing? Yeah he probably wasn't, but how did the police know that? Its not like they violated any rights. They served a warrant and tried to do so in as safe a manner as possible.

    • Well the prog he left behind on the systems was attacking a US Army computer. So yeah, you poke at the US government they poke back.
    • Law enforcement agencies will always bring an incredible excess of force down on a potentially hostile target in order to apprehend him. This is done to ensure the safety of both the target and the officers involved. If the target thinks that he has no chance to defend himself, then he will usually give up without a fight. Personally, I think that this, and anything else that protects our officers, is a damn good idea.
  • Dumbass. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:00PM (#2932172) Journal
    According to Newsbytes:

    According to the FBI, Austin allegedly defaced at least five commercial Web sites since 1999 using the nickname "Ucaun." On three of the sites, Austin left behind a hacking program named troop.cgi that was designed to attempt to log in to a computer operated by the U.S. Army, the FBI affidavit stated. In the interview, Austin acknowledged that he vandalized the Web sites and that he knew it was illegal to do so. But he defended the act by saying it was necessary to get his message out.

    Okay, so this guy was an admitted website defacer who posted denial of service tools on victim websites and knew it was illegal but did it anyway.. That he was doing it for some "anticorporate revolution" doesn't matter one iota.

    But what I really loved was his comment, later in the article:

    "But how many of us are really willing to engage in such an intense form of warfare through bauds and wires? Who's got the balls? Who's willing to sacrifice everything?" said the page.

    Who indeed? Let's start with this numbskull. I say throw the book at him.

    • Re:Dumbass. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by haizi_23 ( 32026 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:06PM (#2932223) Homepage
      agreed. i am very much concerned with the impact of increasing corporate control over our public life, but this idiot is not my spokesperson.

      when you want to mount successful political opposition, you start by keeping your nose squeaky clean so that no one can defame your character when the real work of change begins. this kid obviously didn't get that.

  • by jaxdahl ( 227487 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:01PM (#2932176)
    From the site:

    NEWSFLASH raisethefist.com is running out of current allocated bandwidth. In just two days we have used over 130MB of data transfer. The limit is 512MB per month. That means we will run out of bandwidth in less than a week. If we do, the site will be shut down indefinitely. We need to move to another web host in order to keep the site up and updated with official information for its visitors. If you would like to donate space, the e-mail contact information is on the bottom of this page.

    I think it's a bad idea to link directly to his site.. We could end up costing him a lot of money in bandwidth terms.

    • Darn. He wanted to be heard. He got it.
    • by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:12PM (#2932290)
      > > raisethefist.com is running out of current allocated bandwidth. In just two days we have used over 130MB of data transfer. The limit is 512MB per month. [ ... ]
      > I think it's a bad idea to link directly to his site.. We could end up costing him a lot of money in bandwidth terms.

      1) L33t d00d defaces websites and acknowledges that he knew doing so was illegal.

      2) L33t d00d posts denial-of-service tools on the defaced websites.

      3) L33t d00d then whines about his bandwidth bills arising from the Slashdot effect.

      Payback's a bitch, ain't it, skr1pt k1ddi3?

      There's only one fist that needs to be raised here, and the FBI knows exactly where to raise it. And after the FBI's finished reaming out his bank account, I hope his bandwidth provider takes whatever's left.

  • by Zach Garner ( 74342 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:01PM (#2932179)
    Thanks to Archive.org [archive.org], we can use the Internet Wayback Machine to view the site: Jan 23 [archive.org] or other days [archive.org]
  • by BadDoggie ( 145310 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:02PM (#2932180) Homepage Journal
    Who needs the FBI and a warrant to shut down a site? Post the URL here and the effect will toast the place. We kill sites for an entire month when they have transfer limits, even when we like them.


    Move along now, nothing to moderate here.

  • Jesus Christ (Score:5, Interesting)

    by elefantstn ( 195873 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:03PM (#2932191)
    So this guy is actively cracking and defacing websites, including attempting to break into Army systems, and he's whining about being arrested?

    Next person who whines that he's the victim of the fascist Ashcroftian regime gets beat over the head with a clue-by-four. I'd be pretty pissed if he was hacking my site "so he could get his message out." What a loser.
    • Re:Jesus Christ (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geekoid ( 135745 ) <`dadinportland' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:42PM (#2932575) Homepage Journal
      Yes he should have been arrested. I agree with the way it was handle(based on the story I read).
      The real question is Will he be treated different then any other web site vandle because of his views?
      if not, then fine. but if he gets a stricter sentance because of his anti-government views, then we have a problem.
  • by Mr Krinkle ( 112489 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:03PM (#2932194) Homepage
    This guy is not a martyr. He was stupid and chose to piss in the US gov's wheaties. If you disagree with policies in the US we can still voice or beliefs freely. What noone is allowed to do and should not do is encite a riot. He was trying to do just this. He has messages claiming for everyone to unite and overthrow the US gov. Does that make him a threat? YES. Should the gov have reacted to him as a threat, YES. Did they need to go in their fully armed to and ready for battle? Yes. Police have information that they are to bust someone who has attacked multiple sites and attempted to attack military targets, plus he has been trying to get other people to use violence and weapons to overthrow the gov. He also instructs how to create bombs and other weapons on his site. They had to assume he would be armed. The only way to deal with that is with overwhelming force.
    As long as the go ahead and press charges in a timely manner the gov has done the right thing in this case.
  • by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:04PM (#2932196) Homepage Journal
    Before Slant-Six sank, they had an interesting article on how to confuse the future terrorists. Put up anarchist sites, but provide bogus info. Setup bomb-making instructions that make silly putty or something. The more sites like that that pop-up, the less likely a terrorist will discover the correct bomb-making papers. The point is to fight terrorists by making the internet a place that they can't trust...

    I wonder how the FBI would react to those kinds of sites...
    • And in other news...

      "The US army were embarased today in an attack on Afgan terrorists. They were quoted saying "Damn you leet-terror.com and your fake C4 recipies!" The scent of burning silly putty could be smelt for miles"

      :\ Daz
  • by Tyrannosaurus ( 203173 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:04PM (#2932210)
    "People can rant and rave on the Internet all they want, but when they cross the line of calling people to action to violently overthrow the Constitution of the United States, they have a problem," said McLaughlin.

    That would be correct. The United States of America is all for free speech. It's also a democracy, where you can elect a new government to install new laws if you disagree with the current state of affairs. Elected officials (who presumably represent a majority of the populace) will eventually populate the group responsible for interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court. Therefore, in a theoretical sense (before you start screaming about corporate america owning the politicians), the people do control the government.

    By ignoring the political route and espousing the virtues of a violent overthrow, you have now entered the realm of "terrorist" or "freedom fighter." In a country where the freedom of speech is guaranteed in the very Constitution you want to do away with, you are more than likely to be considered a terrorist. And frankly, I would agree with that assessment.

    Here's a suggestion: if you don't like the system and don't feel like changing the system, take your bombs and move to Columbia or the middle east.

    • Columbia: 2 billion dollars to fight leftist guerillas who are trying to win better conditions for the poor while the right wing wealthy landowners who they're opposing pump drugs into America and bullets into peasants.

      Middle East: Immeasurable amounts of money to support the ghettoification of a large number of Arabs. It's as if the Israeli government is taking all their cues from the third reich (who got their cues from our excellent eradication of Native Americans).

      Here's a suggestion: if you don't like the system and don't feel like changing the system, take your bombs and move to Columbia or the middle east.

      Nonono, tell them to move, but don't let them bring their bombs with them, they'll just end up getting pointed right back at us.
    • You're so right. When our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence there's no doubt they wanted a peaceful political solution!

      It's those damn British who forced us to violently overthrow them. Had they not been so insistent on keeping us as a colony, the whole matter could have been settled peacefully.

    • by Wesley Everest ( 446824 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:18PM (#2932926)
      Oh come on. The U.S. was founded by such "terrorists" (if older and wiser ones).

      The president just recently created a system of military tribunals where you can be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed without even being told the crime you were charged with, without the prosecution having shown probable cause before arrest, without hearing any evidence presented against you, without the ability to cross-examine witnesses, without your choice of counsel, without the crime specifically calling for a death sentence, without a presumption of innocence, without "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or even "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof, without public scrutiny, and without a right of appeal.

      This system makes a military court-martial look like a hippy love-in [hrw.org].

      Now please re-read the Declaration of Independence [nara.gov] and tell me whether the guys that wrote it sound more like Bush or this punk "terrorist" kid.

      The kid may have talked about overthrowing the constitution, but Bush has done it.

      And if your response is that if you don't like it, you should change it by working your way up the corporate ladder until you are CEO of a large enough corporation so that you can buy yourself or a friend into office, spare me. Yeah, and if you don't like the U.S. government, why don't you go to some country the U.S. government is bombing or propping up some hellish dictator -- now that's a great idea!

      Bush has made it perfectly clear -- you are either with him or against him. If you are against him, you are a terrorist and they intend to find you no matter what country you reside in. Clearly Bush is not quite that powerful, yet -- and one hopes that countries that care about human rights will be able to reign in some of his powers, but the point is that if you don't like the U.S. government you're only real options are to try to change it or keep your head down to avoid it's wrath.

      And you won't change it by saving your pennies to work within the system -- with lobbyists, bribes, and the corporate media. The current system has evolved to make sure that we can't change it from within. At the same time, violence is only a successful tactic if you are already powerful -- if you are weak, it will only hasten your destruction (look at what happened to the U.S. militia movement after Oklahoma City). And advocating violence without the intention or the ability to carry it out is the height of stupidity.

      The alternative is to organize where we have the most power (whether we realize it or not) -- with our coworkers or neighbors, in schools, professional associations, clubs, consumer groups, etc. And rather than organize for lofty meaningless phrases, organize for real gains that benefit us and those around us. Much of Bush's attack on Americans has taken the shape of less job security, longer hours, etc. at work. It is possible to resist these attacks, and it is much more effective if the resistance is organized and collective rather than disorganized and individual.

      As passive voters and pleaders, we are powerless, but organized and actively fighting back where we have power can work -- that's how it has worked with every social improvement in the last 1000 years or so, at least.

      • >The president just recently created a system of
        >military tribunals where you

        "you", in this sense, means "people captured while using weapons to actively oppose U.S. military forces"

        >can be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed
        >without even being told the crime you were
        >charged with,

        Where did you pull this out of? That's utter nonsense.

        >without the prosecution having shown probable
        >cause before arrest,

        Uhh, most of us will accept that being captured while resisting the military goes well past probable cause . . .

        >without hearing any evidence presented against

        ??? I think you're confusing these tribunals, which don't yet exist, with something else.

        >without the ability to cross-examine witnesses,

        I'd *really* need to see a source before believing this.

        >without your choice of counsel,

        Yes, there are likely to be limits on counsel, both due to the need for security clearances and local availability. However, the right to counsel *cannot* be completely eliminated, as this would contravene the Rights of Englishmen as recognized at Common Law and protected by the U.S. Constitution. At this level, it is not a question of the U.S. rule, but that to completely refuse access to counsel would violate natural law.

        > without the crime
        >specifically calling for a death sentence,

        only by a very twisted interpretation. In the U.S. and other Common Law nations, statutes with prescribed penalties were not commonplace until *very* recently (20th century for the most part).

        >without a presumption of innocence,

        It's likely that the presumption will be reduced or gone, yes.

        >without "beyond a shadow of a doubt"

        Which, as far as I know, is not the law anywhere for anything.

        >r even "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof,

        Yes, the burden of proof is likely to be much lower, and a unanimous vote will probably not be required.

        > without public scrutiny,
        likely, yes. But there are practical matters getting that much public out there . . .

        >and without a right of appeal.

        Technically, yes. In reality, it is not politically possible that there will be no review.

        These tribunals, if created and used, will be limited to those found in arms and captured while violating the Law of War. You are proposing to extend to them protections that exist in very few places outside the English speaking world.

        Do I think that actually using these tribunals is a good idea? No, at least not at present, while our resources permit other responses.

        Nonetheless, the picture being painted of them is grossly inaccurate. Look to how they were used in the past, and then pull *way* back to meet modern political reality.


        • Here you go (Score:4, Offtopic)

          by Wesley Everest ( 446824 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @07:34PM (#2934469)
          Bush's military tribunal [whitehouse.gov] order.

          The Geneva Convention [unhchr.ch]

          The Nuremburg Charter [umkc.edu].

          Before you think anything about Sept. 11th being something entirely new and especially evil, requiring less due process than in the past, read the Nuremburg Charter. If presumption of innocence is ok for Nazis, it's hard to see when it shouldn't apply.

          Also, keep in mind that all this "anti-terrorism" talk uses Bin Laden as their reason for enacting the laws, but the laws are not confined to the acts of Sept 11th, or even confined to "violent" terrorism. There has been much effort to make sure that illegal political acts that don't involve violence fall under the category of "terrorism". Even before Sept 11th, anti-terrorism laws were used to infiltrate and disrupt non-violent activist groups and labor unions.

          If a farm owner accuses non-citizen farm workers of illegal acts during a union organizing drive or strike, what is to stop these "anti-terrorism" laws and military tribunals from being used? Again, even before Sept 11th, many newspapers have referred to both violent and non-violent protestors in the U.S. as "terrorists", in many cases equating civil-disobedience (illegal acts intended to achieve a political agenda) with assassinations and mass murder.

          And this is nothing new. Dissidents are often called terrorists by repressive governments. Never mind the fundamental differences between the people that destroyed the WTC and people like Martin Luther King.

  • "If I go to jail, then I will go to jail not based on my actions, but based on what I think,"

    Wrong. His actions include defacing websites and distributing information on how to make bombs. Either of those are crimes and punishable by law. He's not some little pacifist sitting in a corner getting picked on by The Man.

    If you want to find a poster boy for "Thought Police Victim" find a better specimen.
  • Guy's final comment (Score:2, Interesting)

    by clarkgoble ( 241742 )
    In the Newsbytes article it ends with the guy saying, "If I go to jail, then I will go to jail not based on my actions, but based on what I think." If there is one thing I'm sure of it is that if he goes to jail it will be because of what he did. It sounds like from the article that they got the goods on him for hacking.

    No offense, but hacking government sites in this post 9/11 era is pretty dumb. Doing so when you are a person who, like bin Laden, encourages people to violence against the United States, simply means you are nothing more than a terrorist tango.

    Don't get me wrong. I think the government has overstepped itself in how it deals with hackers quite a bit. I support the EFF but this guy just ain't one I feel any sympathy for. Hell I downloaded the Anarchist's Cookbook and so forth back when I was his age too. But if he thinks anything ought to go, then he is got some serious mental illness.

    Way to go Secret Service.
  • by T.E.D. ( 34228 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:05PM (#2932217)
    It appears that he was arrested for two things:
    1. Cracking and defacing websites. Clearly an illegal activity. Perhaps it shouldn't be treated as anything more than vandalism, but it's reasonable to involve the Feds, since some of the sites certianly weren't in his home state.
    2. Advocating the violent overthrow of the government. I'm not entirely sure that I agree with this particular law. It was enacted in the early 20th century, cheifly to give the government a reason to arrest Communists who hadn't committed a crime. So its not exactly a new law. If you disagree with it, fine. But then where the heck were you and your complaints the last 50 years when Communists were getting thrown in jail because of it?
  • This guy admits to illegally cracking into at least 5 websites to post his "anarchy message" and defends it by saying "It was necessary to get the word out"? Come on, people!

    Computer cracking was illegal well before 9-11.

  • common sense? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ubergrendle ( 531719 )
    From the newsbytes article: "In the interview, Austin acknowledged that he vandalized the Web sites and that he knew it was illegal to do so. But he defended the act by saying it was necessary to get his message out." So he acknowledges he does something illegal, and then complains about being arrested? SWAT team may be overkill for an 18 punk hacker, but then again there were instructions on bomb making materials. In the heightened state of alert for all police forces since Sept 11, they'd be foolish not to be prepared. People may try to simplify this to a "free speech" or "destruction of the free internet" argument, but I think this case is pretty much cut and dried.
  • Raise the fist (Score:2, Insightful)

    Looking at what info I found on a mirror of the old site (already down im afraid). It looks as if they were more than a tad on the extremist side. For one he knowingly admits to circumventing the law in order to "get his message out" that was his first mistake. Second he appears to have information that more or less (at least implies) that the goverment needs to be overthrown (not changed). The diffrence being overthrowing consitutes violence where changing implies through voting and so forth. Sounds to me like this bust was a good thing. Not a bad one
  • by Da VinMan ( 7669 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:06PM (#2932226)
    Is it really any more complicated than that?

    Yeah, they're using more muscle than what they needed. They really didn't need to seize all of his political literature, unless maybe they consider it evidence of his highly anti-establishment attitude.

    It all seems a bit extreme. But didn't he break the law? Isn't the law a good one? I mean, how many of us really want our neighbors and other assorted yokels having the knowledge to construct bombs out of legally available materials? I'm not so sure I want that available to everyone.

    It's one thing to have and even construct guns. Bombs are a whole new level though. It may infringe on his free speech rights, but his free speech can easily lead to depriving someone else (or many others) of their lives.
    • What law? Show me a law.
      A law against publishing instructions would clearly violate the first amendment.
      • Actually, I was quoting something I read on the site that may or may not be true. IANAL and all that. Let us know when you find it.

        BTW - There are other laws against publishing materials that clearly do not (according to the courts violate) the 1st amendment. How else do corporate trade secrets and national top-secret materials avoid getting published? Yeah, that's an obvious case, but it just points out that the 1st amendment is not an absolute, despite what every ignoramus who doesn't know any better will tell you.
    • by ethereal ( 13958 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:26PM (#2932425) Journal

      I think you'd better be careful on that there slippery slope, because the next step is "how many of us really want 'that hacker kid' down the street having the knowledge of how to reset my router or how to access my bank's poorly-secured web site?" A lot of the things that people on this site know and converse about freely could be just as dangerous to the public as bomb-making instructions.

      I'm not defending hacking or blowing up people with bombs, and I'm not entirely defending this kid either. I'm just saying that we need to differentiate between the knowledge of how to do something, the tools for doing something, and the actual doing of the thing. Responsibility should be laid against those who actually commit crimes, not all of those who know how to. Providing bomb-making information (which is available on any number of other sites) does not seem to be such a major crime.

      Although hacking a DoD site definitely was a big mistake. On those grounds alone he should go down.

  • Since 1999, raisethefist.com has been under extensive government monitering. At times, Raisethefist.com has recieved over 100 hits from the U.S Department of Defense in a single day. The FBI, police department, NSA (and who else) continuesly monitered the site on a daily basis. Even government's from the UK, Canada, Lavtia, Belgium, Egypt, Finland, and Australia monitered the site continuesly. The FBI had also previously intercepted all packets going through the DSL line hosting the site, and have seized additional accounts being used by the site.

    This is verging on redundant, but was any of this monitoring done with a warrant? Is the US Government allowed unfettered ability to monitor (or intercept!) network traffic? This doesn't seem right.
  • Ok,

    This brings up a hard pill for me to swallow. On one hand, Freedom of Speech is protected. I agree with this. However, what happens when your freedoms are put in jeopardy because of information out there like this? Some information just shouldn't be out there. There is NO reason someone should be posting how to make a bomb on the web. If you can find a reason they should, please enlighten me. (Freedom of Speech aside, I am referring to real, honest to God reasons for this being out there)

    • by danheskett ( 178529 ) <danheskett&gmail,com> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:12PM (#2932292)
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      This is the 1st amendment.

      No speech or press by a person can ever be censored for any reason, ever. Period.

      "Good reasons" or "bad reasons" or "good information" or "some information shouldnt be out there" isn't good enough.

      Don't like it? Change the Constitution. Most people would support an amendment making it illegal to pass around bomb-making information. I do.
    • Re:how to make bombs (Score:2, Interesting)

      by xphase ( 56482 )
      I'm not commenting on whether or not someone should post this information on a website.

      I would like to mention that material on how to make bombs has been in circulation since before the internet, and it will be in circulation even if all the sites with HOW-TO's get taken down.

      Also, how many Afghani terrorists have internet accounts? I mean other than John Katz's friend?

      Whether or not I agree with the information being available on-line, I do not feel that it puts our freedom in any sort of jeopardy.

  • I don't understand how people who are so 'smart' try to disseminate a message so stupidly.

    Case is point:
    'Austin acknowledged that he vandalized the Web sites and that he knew it was illegal to do so. But he defended the act by saying it was necessary to get his message out.'


    '"If I go to jail, then I will go to jail not based on my actions, but based on what I think," he said. '

    If he's smart enough to collect this kind of following, why is it that he ISN'T smart enough to figure out how to peacefully make his desires come about?

    And why isn't he smart enough to realise that by calling attention to himself THIS way will just get him squashed.

    America is a pretty cool place. Pretty big things have been changed in pretty peaceful ways. It also has the resources and desire to prevent folks like this from causing [much] damage.

    It's one thing to get your way by trying to break a toy, it's another thing entirely to redesign the environment so that the toy works for you. (and all that 'reed bending in the breeze' Kung Fu crap.)
  • by eclectric ( 528520 ) <bounce@junk.abels.us> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:09PM (#2932255)
    but who can take seriously any person who still lives at home with mommy? He has no conception of what it means to be an adult, so I can't imagine how I'm supposed to take him seriously as a source of political information. I'm not saying people who live with their parents shouldn't have political leanings and causes, but I have trouble taking him seriously if doesn't even have to earn a living. (Which i guess gives him time to run this website, so maybe this is the way to go).

    Then again, I'm pretty much in agreement with his comments about the current climate for those of thus dislike the actions of the United States. I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this as days pass.
  • If i was to walk around handing people pamphlets on how to create bombs and encourage everyone to kill everyone that disagrees with me, i would be arrested and rightfully so.

    If i put up a web site that tells people how to make bombs and encourage everyone to kill everyone that disagrees with me, suddenly i am a poster boy for free speech?
  • by jfengel ( 409917 )
    Posted on the raisethefist.com site:

    "anyone actively disagreeing with policies of the U.S is now automatically rendered a 'terrorist' in the eyes of national security."

    Perhaps that's so, but I'd venture to say that those disagreeing with the policies of the US and publishing information on how to make bombs are more likely to get noticed than those who simply disagree. They claim that "The sysop of this site does not endorse nor use any method of violence" but bomb-making and anti-government rhetoric on the same site are at the very least an implicit threat.

    IANAL, so I can't speak to the legalities of it. But I know that if I were a FBI agent, I too would have wanted armor when I went in there.
  • I might be a little jaded against the world, but sites like this are ludicrous. I'm glad that he got raided and I do hope they arrest him. He's obviously an ignorant child who wants attention, and possibly to hurt people. These are the kinds of people we do not want free in the United States.

  • by lkaos ( 187507 )
    According to Austin, all of the site's files, which were dedicated to "the anti-corporate globalization movement,"

    So while he's against corporate globalization, he has no problem with violating my privacy by display a doubleclick.com advertising banner on his site along with one of the stupid pop-down X10 windows...

    I would be the first to run to this guy's defense for posting bomb-making techniques or anything of that nature but since he broke into computer systems I just simply can't condone his actions.

    It's funnny though because he justifies breaking into a computer system (and thereby, violating someone's rights) because he's spreading a message against a government who are violating peoples rights.

    I think his mommy forgot to tell him that two wrongs don't make a right...
  • He probably would have gotten more traffic and support and less hassle if had spent all that time learning to create satirical flash movies of administration officials.

    Play George Bush the fighter pilot trying to shoot Osama bin laden. There so many angles that would have done much better. So instead he thinks to do things like bombs and stuf like that.

    Heck even stuff like WhiteHouse.ORG [whitehouse.org] is much more effective, even if in questionable taste. The opportunity is boundless if you have that talent. Which this kid probably did not.

  • A bit twisted. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by halftrack ( 454203 )
    This site and this guy claims to support free speach. But - being somewhat of an anarchist - he forgets that free speach doesn't mean that everything everyone says about anything to anybody should be free and up for grabs. Cracking is never right, nor is breaking the law. But then again, he's an anarchist who will go to jail for his acts, not his thoughts/belives. like he claims he will.

    Regarding the FBI raid, they must be high on something themself. 2 officers with handguns and a solid kick on the door would probably have been more appropriate.
  • I remember something that David Dellinger (peace activist since WW II) said on the topic of weapons and activism. Essentially the army is way to well armed to confront in an armed fashion. Possesion of weapons will only give one a false sense of power and leave one ripe for arrest or extermination. According to what he said, the FBI would actually try to get activists interested in weapons in order to have something to come down on them on. Kinda like the big guy who can kick your ass as soon as he goads you into taking the first punch.

    Its almost as if armed drug dealers run this country and try to control us with the things they do best. Anyone know if this years Afghan smack has made it to the US yet. I'll bet its gonna get real cheap soon.
  • Kuro5hin.org (Score:2, Informative)

    by Forager ( 144256 )
    This story was front page on k5 a few days ago; I only post this notice because there was some interesting commentary along the lines of what we're already seeing here now. You might want to surf over there and see what the folks at k5 [notslashdot.org] have been saying.

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/1/26/112847/742 [kuro5hin.org]

  • Matthew McLaughlin, a representative of the FBI's Los Angeles field office, confirmed that agents who conducted the search were heavily armed.

    "This is Los Angeles after all. We always go in to protect ourselves. We don't go in with slingshots," said McLaughlin

    Ok, so this guy is probably pretty clearly guilty of computer cracking - and yeah, that's definately criminal in this case. I don't think there's much question about that. What disturbs me here is thay they send out a damn batallion of armed-to-the-teeth FBI to pick this guy up! What's wrong with just sending down ONE pair FBI officers and a few squads? Here we still don't know who was sending antrhax letters all over the place, but the FBI needs to send the fscking infantry to bust a skript kiddie?!?

    I'm not usually one to bitch about my "tax dollars", but I want my money back on this operation. Go solve a murder case, you assholes. Leave these relatively petty (and *non-violent*) crimes to the local cops or a rookie FBI agent.

    • If there's one thing that's been consistent in 200 years of United States justice, it's that *directly* inciting others to criminal or violent acts is *just as illegal* and just as damaging as doing the actions. The most easily dismissed claims of violations to the first amendment are those where you advocate violence towards others.

      In regards to the raid itself, they probably didn't know what this could have, or indeed who might also be in the house. Not to mention that the kid claims to know how to make bombs... all of these make for a potentially dangerous situation. Of course, we'd all like to sit and make hindsight observations, but going in it was probably a situation with a quite a few unknowns.

      And, that is LA. You need an uzi to give a parking ticket.
  • $300 Needed (Score:2, Insightful)

    If you look at raisethefist.com, they are requesting $300 to obtain an original copy of all of the "files" from a "host" who has them. That's pretty amusing, meaning:

    a) someone cached their "anti-globalization" site and
    b) is holding it for ransom.

    A couple of other anachronism: the "founder"'s email address is food_should_be_free@yahoo.com. Assuming this is a position he believes in, he's not an anarchist, he's a communist. Anarchy believes in everyone getting their own food, through work or theft or whatever.

    Additionally, he uses the extremely creative spelling of "litature" for "literature."
  • I remember back in the old days, when we had a weird little thing called 'freedom of speech'.
  • Motives or a wish to "get the message out" aside, it's against the law to do the site hacking and DoS stuff he did. To paraphrase a founding father, his right to hack stops where my server begins.

    The charge against posting instructions on bombs, etc probably won't stick for 1st amendment reasons, but they've got plenty of stuff he's already admitted to to nail him on. He's a stupid 18 yr old kid with a warped notion of what his rights are in a free society. The vehemence of a teenagers feelings is never an excuse for breaking the law though.

    He deserves it. Hope he rots for a while, then gets a good lawyer who can explain to him why it's NOT ok to do such stupid things.

  • I was so psyched to see an article about some innocent website operator with an unpopular opinion being bullied by the big, bad government.

    Well, this guy's no innocent: He's hacked websites and admitted to it. He claims it was the only way to get his word out. Here's a clue for the guy: If you're having that much trouble getting the word out, either you're not trying hard enough or people just aren't interested. Did he think that hacking sites would suddenly make people say "Gee, this vandel has a point"?

    And sure his opinion may be unpopular in the current political climate, but resorting to threats of violence (and posting "how-to's" for violence) to achieve your aims is never acceptable. As jaded as some people have become, the political system *can* work. If you're getting fustrated that the country isn't bending to your will, get over it. There are a couple hundred million people living in the US with only about two hundred or so people representing them. If you can't get a big group of people to agree with you, don't expect US policy to change in your favor.

    As far as the cops going in fully armed: This guy had instructions on how to make bombs and has a strong, violent, anti-government viewpoint. If I were the cop going in there I'd want a bullet-proof vest and as much ammo (and backup) as could be spared as well. I wouldn't knock on his door unarmed and say "Please, Mr. potential-psycho surrender or else I'll be forced to ask politely again."
  • by bryan1945 ( 301828 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:29PM (#2932452) Journal
    I call on all Americans to rise up and fight this! Oppose these pigs. Fight to the death! Up with anarchy, down with bad stuff!

    Let us march into a new age, and...

    *knock, knock*
    "It's the FBI."
    Oh, fuck! Hold on a minute...

    rm / *.* -r
    format c:

    *crash* "Freeze!"

  • by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:33PM (#2932497) Homepage Journal

    "People can rant and rave on the Internet all they want, but when they cross the line of calling people to action to violently overthrow the Constitution of the United States, they have a problem," said McLaughlin.

    Looks like the FBI will be raiding the federal government next, then.

  • HE HACKED OUR SITE! (Score:4, Informative)

    by tcd004 ( 134130 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:36PM (#2932526) Homepage
    Yes, i've got his troop.cgi program tucked away on my hard drive. On december 26th of 1999 he hacked our website ( http://www.foreignpolicy.com [foreignpolicy.com]) and posted this page:

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/12HOME.HTML [foreignpolicy.com]

    I imagine that troop.cgi progam is sitting on more than 3 webservers out there.
    • Actually that is pretty funny. (The web site, not the vandalism) This guy isn't protesting an oppressive government. This guy is unable to distinguish the difference between the real world and the X-files. As soon as someone protesting the government starts mentioning UFOs and the Illuminati then you know the guy isn't playing with a full deck.
    • My god, did you look at his HTML? It's full of unclosed tags, deprecated tags and elements, and some of it was clearly done in a WYSIWYG editor.

      C'mon, either we believe in standards or we don't. Raise your fist against bad code....
  • by darien ( 180561 ) <darien@ g m ail.com> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:37PM (#2932536)
    From the Newsbytes story: "In the interview, Austin said he did not write the bomb instructions but instead copied the pages from another site."

    Never mind incitement to violence - this guy's a copyright violator! Let him fry, I say.
  • by gdyas ( 240438 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:38PM (#2932543) Homepage

    Thoreau, in Civil Disobediance, explained that philosophically it's right to disobey what you honestly feel is an unjust law. In doing so though, one needs to be willing to accept society's punishment for its violation.

    In comparison, doesn't this whiny punk who's spent too much time in the 2600/Mother Jones/High Times section of the magazine rack seem a little lacking? No matter though. I'm sure his bunkmates in Leavenworth will show him the meaning of passive resistance.

  • by bobdehnhardt ( 18286 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:40PM (#2932557)
    From reading the articles, this guy was engaged in illegal activities (by his own admission), was caught, arrested, and is awaiting trial. So why are we even discussing it?

    This guy is no Sklyarov, arrested in the US for actions he performed legally elsewhere (sort of like legally visiting a prostitute in Nevada, and getting arrested for it in New York). What he did was illegal, he knew it, he admitted it.

    End of story, to my mind.
  • by Pinball Wizard ( 161942 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:40PM (#2932562) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, yeah, this guy broke into websites and should be punished. However, way too many people seem to be forgetting a couple of things.

    1 - The right of the people to overthrow their government when it fails to meet their needs is written in the Declaration of Independence:

    Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

    It is expressly Patriotic according to our countries founding document to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical.

    2 - we have this little thing called freedom of speech. There is no law prohibiting the dissemination of bomb making information. If that is a crime, I guess Amazon.com is a terrorist organization:

    Poor Man's James Bond [amazon.com]

    Anarchist's Cookbook [amazon.com]

    Home Workshop Explosives [amazon.com]

    I suggest we keep these things in mind as we continue to hunt down terrorists. Its important not to forget the freedoms that make this country worth fighting for.

    • Re:Lets not forget (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rhone ( 220519 )

      The right of the people to overthrow their government when it fails to meet their needs is written in the Declaration of Independence


      Its important not to forget the freedoms that make this country worth fighting for.

      One of those important freedoms is the right to vote for who will represent us in the government. One of the most important causes of the American Revolution is that the American colonies had no representation in Parliament. We can't make that claim about the current American government.

      As bad as our government might be, it is still composed of people who are chosen by a majority of Americans. Sure, we might be given some shitty options to choose from, and those of us who are intellectual might be outnumbered by the ignorant masses who fall in love with guys like George W. Bush, but the fact remains: The members of our government are there because a majority of the country chose them to be.

      But who voted for all these militia groups and anarchist groups who want to violently overthrow the government? How many people want them to succeed? Which one should succeed, if any? How free would the country be if they succeeded? Would the leaders of these groups let the country vote on a new leader every few years? And what happens after the revolution, anyway? It's not like all the wannabe-revolutionary groups agree with each other, so there would just be more revolutions--and they'd all be justified, by your argument--as each group takes it's turn trying to establish its own ideology.

      How free are people under that situation?

      Anyway, I'm not even going to touch on the craziness of expecting a government to say "Yeah, people have the right to overthrow us. Go ahead." ;)

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:01PM (#2932762) Homepage
    In December, 2001, raisethefist.com read: [archive.org]
    • Let's get this straight:

      A president we did not elect, heading a government bought off by corporations, arrogantly and agressively pushes a pro-corporate domestic agenda and foreign policy. Now over 6,000 people are dead and he say's we're at "war", fighting secret battles against unknown enemies, and he wants everyone to be "patriots" by forsaking our civil liberties and going "shopping".

    One may or may not agree, but that's a reasonable political statement.

    I don't see anything about bomb-making in the copies of his site at archive.org. [archive.org] The archive isn't complete, because some of his pages are generated by CGI scripts, and the archive system doesn't try to archive dynamic content. But the visible content is straight political material.

    You can get bomb-making information from mainstream sources. Order Improvised Munitions [amazon.com] from Amazon.com. That book is popular with the Christian right [google.com] and the right-wing "militia" movement.

  • by wytcld ( 179112 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:15PM (#2932898) Homepage
    Why go to amateurs when the US gov. will seel you top quality biowar instructions [nytimes.com] for fifteen bucks!
  • by ctimes2 ( 38940 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:23PM (#2932976) Homepage
    Seriously, c'mon.
    First, activists are not terrorists, and that kid's no activist. My brother-in-law is an activist {PETA} and his arguments are intelligent, well researched, more than reasonable, and effective. I haven't given up meat yet, but I've cut down on milk. Thus, someone is listening to him and he's effecting change. That is what activists do.

    RTF is nothing more than a dumb ass kid preaching to the disenfranchised (yeah, like that's tough). He has no real concept of anarchy, no understanding of WHY the world works the way it works (no matter how screwed up it gets), and no reasonable solution. So in effect, he's running his position on poor instinct and bad judgement. He effects no change because all he's trying to do is scare people into either buying his position or dying in the chaos of upheaval. I guess it never occured to him that most of the rest of us couldn't give a rats ass about what he thinks ("getting the message out"... what a load. Your message is out, and it sounds like a big steaming pile of crap. Now you're going to try and play the victim card & blame it on the government? Where do you come from?).

    Then, he's got the balls, audacidity or insanity to claim the agencies involved used a lot of hardware - no shit sherlock. You ran a website that advocated voilence, vandalism, and had BOMB making instructions on your site. Gangs are dangerous and have guns. You have politicol motivation, half a brain (1/2 more than most local gangs), and a dangerous message with instructions on how others can perform those acts too. Plus, you broke the LAW... you... IDIOT! You bet they're coming heavily armed.

    And by the way, the definition of terrorism is, and I quote "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons". How 'bout that. You're a fledgling terrorist according to the very definition of the word. Good luck to him and for the FBI, keep up the good work.

    If any of you feel any sympathy for this guy, you need to evaluate whether or not that's because you agree with him or just hate the feds, because that's one *'d up kid. And I'll bet the thousands of other sites that host the same kind of information (anarchists cookbook, etc.) don't advocate or act upon an idiological soapbox, which is why this kid was nabbed.

    /rant. sorry.
  • by nstrom ( 152310 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @05:07PM (#2933406)
    Professor Dave Touretzky at CMU (the guy that runs the well-known DECSS gallery, has a mirror of the previous contents of the raisethefist website here [cmu.edu]. The content for which the site was raided was apparantly the Reclaim Guide [cmu.edu], which contains detailed instructions on defensive and offensive tactics for rioters faced with riot police.
  • My thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mysty ( 4842 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @05:25PM (#2933586) Homepage
    I'm reasonably leftist/radical myself, certainly at american standards. So, my first impulse is to feel sort of sorry for the kid, and feel anger for the cops.

    About his political views:

    The kid isn't very smart. He also hasn't much interesting to say.

    Lot's of things he is against, and almost nothing that he is for. That is always a sure sign of the wrong kind of punkers/leftist/idealists or whatever americans would call this type of people.

    The "right" kind of leftist is harder to find and is usually doing hard work for their ideals.

    About his methods:

    He shouldn't have kept all those computers at home, he should have hosted his stuff offsite in the first place. Or at freenet or something equally elusive.

    So as a revolutionist he isn't very effective. Basic survival of the fittest at work, I would say.

    About him as a person:

    I view this kid simply as a malcontent adolescent. He is only crying for attention, and now he got it. In fact, the people who raided his home did him a favour, if I think about it:

    Look at all the attention he got!

    Also, he already had the opinion that all police/secret service etc. are fascist bastards anyway, so now that they come raid him, he accuses them of overreacting and being meanies generally.

    Well, duh!

    Like I said, he is not very smart, like most of his kind

Thus spake the master programmer: "Time for you to leave." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"