Victims Of GCHQ's Denial Of Service Attacks Start Asking Who Are The Real Criminals?
from the doesn't-seem-right dept
Earlier today, we wrote about the latest Snowden docs, in which it was revealed that the UK spy agency, GCHQ, was engaged in DDoS attacks on people participating in Anonymous chats and other events, while also helping to identify certain participants, leading to their eventual arrests and convictions. Basically, it looks like GCHQ was engaged in widespread DDoSing, while at the same time helping to convict some kids for doing their own DDoSing. We’ve already questioned whether or not GCHQ is even supposed to be doing that to UK citizens (they’re supposed to be focused on foreign targets), but some of those convicted are already questioning how it’s right that they were convicted of the same thing that the GCHQ itself was doing to them.
Chris Weatherhead was sentenced to 18 months in prison for participating in a DDoS against Paypal, Mastercard and Visa (one of the first big Anonymous DDoS attacks, in response to those 3 companies cutting off payments to Wikileaks). Now he’s pointing out that GCHQ was DDoSing his own servers, and he wonders how that’s right:
My Government used a DDoS attack against servers I owned, and then convicted me of conducted DDoS attacks. Seriously what the fucking fuck?
— Chris Weatherhead (@CJFWeatherhead) February 5, 2014
I plead guilty to two counts of DDoS conspiracy and to my face these GCHQ bastards were doing the exact same thing – http://t.co/Y4vo1qeN4I
— Jake Davis (@DoubleJake) February 5, 2014
Why do British government spooks so brazenly attempt to inhibit the activities of acephalous online collectives and not, say, the hate-filled Westboro Baptist Church, or chat networks that encourage racism or paedophilia?
Or maybe the more important question: how can they even be permitted to launch these attacks at all? There’s no justification for how nonchalant a democratic government can be when they breach the very computer misuse rules they strongly pushed to set in place.
When we look at what Western governments are doing – snooping on our emails, infecting our computers, intercepting our phone communications, following our avatars around in online games, backdooring our public encryption, discrediting our Internet viewing habits, encouraging illicit activity and even engaging in their own illicit activity – we have to ask ourselves: who are the real criminals here?
Others have similarly wondered if GCHQ is going to have to face charges over this, given that these actions appear to be entirely outside of its mandate and mission, and seem more compelled by just general dislike of some kids messing around.
Filed Under: anonymous, chris weatherhead, ddos, gchq, jake davis, legality, uk
Comments on “Victims Of GCHQ's Denial Of Service Attacks Start Asking Who Are The Real Criminals?”
Face charges?
Are you mad? Why would they face charges?
The GCHQ and NSA *ARE* the law!
Even if they’re found guilty, they won’t spend any time in prison.
Prison is for the lower class, the rich and elite don’t spend time in there.
After all, we have yet to see anyone from the banking crash go to prison, we have Clapper, who lied to Congress, still in charge, people like Feinstein, Rogers and King get air time, but if you dare violate the CFAA as a citizen, you’ll face 35+ years if you don’t agree to an 18 month sentence. Oh, and don’t think that the prosecutor is ever going to get fired for overzealous prosecution.
Yeah, I’m a bit bitter at all this high court, low court, BS, is it obvious?
Re: Face charges?
in spite of not liking ‘me too’ comments:
me too times two…
Re: Re: Face charges?
I’m guessing a whole “horde” of us is tired of this bs. I wonder when this will reach critical mass…
"general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
When will commentors learn? How long is it going to take for everyone who comments here to learn that by responding to OOTB that you’re GIVING HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS: attention!
Evidence here: “Yet they can’t keep from commenting at me”
It’s about time people learn to
REPORT OOTB AND EVERYONE WHO RESPONDS TO HIM
Those “conversations” add NOTHING OF VALUE to the site and are DRIVING PEOPLE AWAY FROM TECHDIRT (myself included soon if something isn’t done to reign in this nuisance)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140204/07522126085/new-zealand-spy-agency-deleted-evidence-about-its-illegal-spying-kim-dotcom.shtml#c341
Re: "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
blue, no one is trying to keep you from commenting. No one ever has. Mike COULD remove your comments, then block your IP once he did, forcing you to change it in order and then engage in a pointless game of cat and mouse, but he doesn’t. He just leaves them alone and lets the readers hide them if they want to. And if you didn’t act like such an ass all the time your comments wouldn’t get hidden regardless of whether you agreed with everybody else or not.
Re: "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
OOTB. You are being reported because you lack the social etiquette for properly contributing to an article. You are the least reasonable person who comments and you do not comprehend that the report button isn’t a censor but to hide trollish and spam comments. I read many comments and nearly everyone one of yours in the past week I have reported except for one. I don’t remember which one it was but it was actually decent and added to the conversation. But the first thing you do in most comments is either attack the author or the tech dirt community. Anytime I see a comment that does either one of those things, I will report it. If you truly feel slightly and you are not trolling for the lolz, then next time try posting an honest opinion with out attacking anyone or using all caps.
Re: Re: "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
@ AC: Had you read the linked comment, you’d see that
a) there’s an organized attempt to suppress my opinions sheerly for being contrary.
b) the UPPERCASE is a quote and not mine, so your comments should go to that AC who proposed the concerted effort to suppress me.
ANY reasonable person will me well within common law, and expressing opinions, and only reacting to hostile attempts to shut me up.
And I’m staying, kids, until such time as pleases me. Action by Mike will hamper me, but as in three years or more he’s never indicated a problem with me commenting here — indeed has said, “This is hilarious. Keep it up, kiddo.”, you should defer to him.
Techdirt fanboys are so feeble they can’t stand skipping over a bit of text! — Are these leaders against the surveillance state? Or just weenies pretending to be pirates?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140204/07522126085/new-zealand-spy-agency-deleted-evidence-about-its-illegal-spying-kim-dotcom.shtml#c341 (197 of 198)
09:02:56[k-5-2]
Re: Re: Re: "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
You are free to comment and I have read many of your comments. I do not participate in any group trying to block all your comments. I see people trying to suppress you on everything because of what I have noticed and mentioned. Even in your response to me you insult the tech dirt community by calling them kids and an insulting tag line. You are acting hostile to the community and in return the community has turned against you. As for (b) it does go to all AC. I don’t limit my reporting to you but use the same criteria for all comments that I have read.
Re: Re: Re: "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
ive always considered you to be a contrarian, devils advocate, etc.. on one hand you rail against the establishment. on the other, the “kids”..
your comments are so ludicrous. they are just.. i don’t know.. out of the blue.. Get it?! i liek your gimmick.
your comments are along the same lines as average_joe’s were. i liked his gimmick as well.
you are one of a kind, sir! good day!
Re: Re: Re:2 "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
OOTB is actually the highlight of my day!
I come home from work and actually spend a lot more time than I used to going through the comments.
I find most of his/its/hers frothing at the mouth terribly entertaining! to me it seems obvious there is some brain power and some maybe even some education there, but it is so poorly harnessed and focused that I Laugh Out Loud often at the sheer lunacy!
Re: Re: Re:2 "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
you are one of a kind, sir! good day!
I bet it feels like winning a Troll Grammy when someone like darryl starts admiring your work.
Re: Re: Re:3 "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
Troll of the year?
Re: Re: Re: "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
Organized censorship? I call bull
It’s simply people who have no pull
Asking others to shun
You in your trollish fun
And you claim all are covered with wool.
Re: Re: "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
Please don’t feed the troll, Blue has no interest in debate, discussion, or even reading the articles, all he/she cares about is getting people to pay attention to them, and derailing any debates/discussions that might otherwise occur.
Just report the posts as what they are ‘Abusive, spam, trollish or otherwise inappropriate’ and then move on.
At most, if you wish to offer a rebuttal for one of Blue’s claims in a quick and simple manner, do so, but don’t bother beyond that, as it’s a waste of time and effort.
Re: Re: "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
“OOTB. You are being reported because you lack the social etiquette for properly contributing to an article”
So he’s being censored, because you don’t agree with his speech! K got that.
Re: Re: Re: "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
First reporting isn’t censoring. Censoring requires that it is unavailable to other people. But I am not going to argue that. The main thing is that freedom of speech works both ways. He free to post whatever he wants. We are free to report whatever we want. Nothing is being deleted by doing it.
Re: "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
Hehehe, ankle-biter #1 whining again. It tooks some time but finally we’re there and I’m quite interested in the next stage.
clicks report
They need a revolution.
"general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
MIKE: you are hereby notified that your inaction isn’t acceptable. Just because I try to poke fun at your fanboys doesn’t mean that I enjoy this concerted harassment, nor endure it willingly. As you’ve taken zero (visible) action to my previous complaints, I don’t expect you to this time, either, BUT you don’t have any defense from sharing whatever liability the rabid little fanboys might cause. I wouldn’t advise you to let them diminish your fine site further. A word from you would stop this targeting of me, and in any case, YOU do have the power to remove posts. So long as you leave me to defend myself, I’ll do so.
When will commentors learn? How long is it going to take for everyone who comments here to learn that by responding to OOTB that you’re GIVING HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS: attention!
Evidence here: “Yet they can’t keep from commenting at me”
It’s about time people learn to
REPORT OOTB AND EVERYONE WHO RESPONDS TO HIM
Those “conversations” add NOTHING OF VALUE to the site and are DRIVING PEOPLE AWAY FROM TECHDIRT (myself included soon if something isn’t done to reign in this nuisance)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140204/07522126085/new-zealand-spy-agency-deleted-evidence-about-its-illegal-spying-kim-dotcom.shtml#c341
"general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
THIS IS COPY-PASTED FROM THE LINK.
When will commentors learn? How long is it going to take for everyone who comments here to learn that by responding to OOTB that you’re GIVING HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS: attention!
Evidence here: “Yet they can’t keep from commenting at me”
It’s about time people learn to
REPORT OOTB AND EVERYONE WHO RESPONDS TO HIM
Those “conversations” add NOTHING OF VALUE to the site and are DRIVING PEOPLE AWAY FROM TECHDIRT (myself included soon if something isn’t done to reign in this nuisance)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140204/07522126085/new-zealand-spy-agency-deleted-evidence-about-its-illegal-spying-kim-dotcom.shtml#c341
Hey kids: if you don’t want to be seen as censoring opinion, it’s real simple: don’t click “report” when comments are within common law! (98 of 198)
09:04:28[k-17-1]
Re: "general dislike of some kids messing around" -- Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that's understandable...
people here don’t censor opinions, they report rambling idiots who are only a nuisance and an insult to sentient life everywhere.
in that spirit click Bye blue…
So ‘One law for me, another for thee’, that’s government in a nutshell for you.
What’s worse, I’m sure the government is completely incapable of seeing the similarities between the cases, instead going off the idea of ‘If the government, or one of it’s agencies does it, it’s legal and acceptable, but if someone else does the same thing then they deserve everything we can do to them.’
I like temper-tantrums on the internets
As I’m multi-slacking right now at work the PC is muted however, even OOTB was posting something with an audible component it would still be fun to watch him flail about and go all Blue in the face.
It’s sorta’ like watching a kid in the carpark throwing a fit while the windows are up and my radio is on. Always entertaining and yet you still fell kinda’ bad for the kid because they just don’t get what an ass they are making of themselves.
Ah come-on, gee whiz, da guv needs SOMEBODY to practice their cyber-warfare on…
exactly! funny how things are illegal until a government of law enforcement does them!
Re: Re:
Do as i say not as i do
This is outrageous and all, but for me the real question is this:
How do you tweet when you are “banned from the internet”?
o.o
Re: Re:
How can you be banned from the internet?
That is like banning me from using a phone.
Re: Re: how can you be banned? Simple
A judge can say “this is so”.
Now after a Judge says ‘this is so’ the ruling can be obeyed, disobeyed or appealed in some way.
If disobeyed then someone has to decide if the original order stands.
Re: Re: Re: how can you be banned? Simple
I have less and less respect for the “just us” system. Especially after what a cop did when I was hit by a car. And now the driving privilege is being pushed in the path of my walking rights.
Good luck enforcing it.
because, unfortunatly you were’nt authorised to do something illegal /s
Western “democracy”……..what a joke
Re: Re:
“Western “democracy”……..what a joke”
Got any better suggestions ?
Hmmmmm
Getting themselves to, hmmm, convict……them—selves
Vs
Kicking them to the curb
Yes, lets do the first one /s
Once again, censoring here is the main topic:
“general dislike of some kids messing around” — Given the attempts by kids here to censor me, that’s understandable…
THIS IS COPY-PASTED FROM THE LINK.
When will commentors learn? How long is it going to take for everyone who comments here to learn that by responding to OOTB that you’re GIVING HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS: attention!
Evidence here: “Yet they can’t keep from commenting at me”
It’s about time people learn to
REPORT OOTB AND EVERYONE WHO RESPONDS TO HIM
Those “conversations” add NOTHING OF VALUE to the site and are DRIVING PEOPLE AWAY FROM TECHDIRT (myself included soon if something isn’t done to reign in this nuisance)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140204/07522126085/new-zealand-spy-agency-deleted-evidence-about- its-illegal-spying-kim-dotcom.shtml#c341
By the way, kids, the above is one of your own calling for censoring me. And no, it’s not because I’m “trolling”, it’s my opinions.
Here for the hypothetical objective reader is example of my substance on copyright:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140117/10562125920/copyright-week-fair-use-is-not-exception-rule.shtml#c139
Now, that’s substance that the kids don’t want seen at all.
It’s not me being obnoxious: I’m just responding to being censored by these nasty little Techdirt trolls.
Re: Once again, censoring here is the main topic:
i don’t believe in censorship even more than you, but -as a raging asshole on the inertnet who has been kicked off, censored, banned, etc from more sites than you visit- you are a special kind of asshole…
and don’t even have the saving grace of being funny…
i don’t really want to censor you, but it would be difficult to defend you if someone did…
however, i do wish a meteorite, safe, or piano would fall on your pointy head…
…is that bad of me ? ? ?
Re: Re: Once again, censoring here is the main topic:
nah perfectly reasonable. I really want to his namedmentioned one last time in a darwin award, beacause that is the only award he truly deserves.
Re: Re: Once again, censoring here is the main topic:
oh, so you don’t believe in censorship, except when you disagree with what is being said!
Perfect…
Re: Re: Once again, censoring here is the main topic:
“i don’t believe in censorship even more than you, but”
there is always a “BUT”.. (and here is my excuse, and explanation that I really, REALLY LOVE Censorship).
he does address the issues presented at TD, and yes, I am sure you don’t agree with him, particularly if you are a Masnick booster. But please don’t try to justify this cheap censorship on the basis that you don’t agree with what he says.
Being against censorship for the speech you agree with, but not for speech you disagree with, is just saying you agree with censorship.
Made even worst by the fact that Masnick made this site as such that you CAN easily censor people you don’t agree with.
Masnick therefore supports and promotes this censorship.
And you also say this web site would be more popular with more censorship !!!! really, you think that is what people who are against censorship want ?? MORE OF IT??
Either you support censorship or you believe it is wrong, but don’t say you support free speech and at the same time support censorship, and facilitate it on this web site.
Mr Masnick, either your words or your acts are a lie, which is it..
Do you support free speech, or support censorship, your words say you support free speech, your actions (the CENSOR BUTTON) (call it what you like) supports censorship.
One of them is a lie, and as your actions show you support and promote censorship, we can assume its your words are the lie!
Re: Re: Re: Once again, censoring here is the main topic:
Hiding a comment behind one mouse click does not censorship make.
And for the record, I read any OOTB comment I find, even the “censored” ones, they cheer me up every time.
out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.
Notice how the idea of fairness of Government is a dissenting opinion?
If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy.
Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting; Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, (1928)
It is very well to say that those who deal with the Government should turn square corners. But there is no reason why the square corners should constitute a one-way street.
Mr. Justice JACKSON, dissenting. 332 U.S. 380 68 S.Ct. 1 92 L.Ed. 10 FEDERAL CROP INS. CORPORATION v. MERRILL et al.
Re: Re:
so you don’t break laws because your Government does not break laws?
but if your Government is found to have broken a law, all bets are off, and because the Government broke laws, you also HAVE THE RIGHT to break laws yourself !!
OMFG !!!
Re: Re:
and Governments don’t break laws, people break laws.
If a person working for the Government breaks a law, he has a chance to go to Court and defend himself, and he may or MAY NOT be convicted.
You don’t get to decide if someone else has broken a law or not, what do you think you are a Court?
Re: Re: Re:
The stupidity is strong with you – tis a good thing techdirt lets us know that you posted comments at:
7:25pm 7:29pm 7:46pm 7:26pm 7:47pm 8:06pm
As the post you replied to notes – Supreme court justices are in the minority when they express the opinion that if the citizens are asked to behave under law in a certain way,so should the Government.
And as for:
what do you think you are a Court?
I am. I am a member of the Court of public opinion and find your response to be crap.
Kind of like how the Court of Public here on techdirt opinion finds Out_of_the_blue’s posts to be unworthy of even being read.
While I agree with Davis’ criticism of the DDoS attacks by the UK government, I find it utterly IRONIC that Davis thinks the UK government should attack Westboro Baptist Church because it’s “hate-filled” – and then he IMMEDATELY demonstrates his PWN blind ignorant hatred when proposing a different target in the SAME sentence.
Fuck chris weatherhead
Fuck chris weatherhead
stupid argument
So if a criminal carries and uses a gun, and is a criminal, a police officer who also carries a gun is equally a criminal!
same as if you mum carried a gun, she would be a criminal as well!
Re: stupid argument
Haven’t seen that much straw since I passed by a farm…
Re: stupid argument
that is a bad analogy. A better one (with guns) would be :
Civillian(the “kids”) shoots a criminal(paypal) because they are assaulting someone(wikileaks).
Cops shows up and shoots the civilian because shooting is wrong. Then the cop arrests them for shooting someone.
The problem is that, according to the government, there is no excuse ever to use the same tool the government is using…. doesn’t make much sense. If there is no case for someone else to use the tool then the government should also not have a case for use of the tool.
darryl and out_of_the_blue just can’t stand it when due process is enforced.
Once a comment has been hidden, any replies need to be hidden as well.
Too much scrolling to get past the bullshit replies to one stupid troll. Anyone who believes their shit isn’t anyone I would even attempt to change their mind. I wouldn’t want clueless idiots on my side.
Criminals, criminals, everywhere.
I find this situation totally insane when sure these Anonymous & LulzSec people were punished for their political activism in terms of DDoS attacks.
I have no problems with that when they knew the law and they knew the risks. This was a political expression when the US Administration used Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and more to attack WikiLeaks. I should also add that this attack on WikiLeaks was later concluded to be unlawful by the EU.
So there is a whole lot of understanding there of people protesting against unlawful acts by these companies.
To now find out that GCHQ were doing DDoS attacks also is the most insane thing I have ever heard. Criminals on both sides of the fence but naturally one side gets punished under the law while the other side does not.
This also comes as no surprise to me when I well know that the US Administration has at their command a level of DDoS attack that dwarfs all others. The US Administration at the command of the MAFIAA have used this against file sharing sites and more. So while that area has yet to be proved via leaked documents we now see the British sleeps in the same bed as the Americans. Obviously GCHQ would have had other targets beyond these two groups and they would follow American plans.
Banned from the internet?
How’d be post on his twitter account if he was banned from the internet?
Re: Banned from the internet?
Open Wi-fi? Bans on connectivity are ineffective at best, laughable at worst…
More False Flags
Its very likely that the Snowden Files will eventually show us all that most of the online dangers – viruses, trojans, web-bugs, and the entire array of nasty man-made pitfalls – are really the work of a few western governments who want people to stay away from the one thing that has shown their deceptions and crimes time and time again; the Internet.
No wonder these same governments are having wet dreams about assassinating Mr. Snowden.
TANGO DOWN.
You’d have to have been living in a cave not to have known the double standard here. You’d also have to have been not paying attention to Anonymous and Lulzsec and their online rivalries during their “Summer of Lulz” to have failed to notice this. Because of one name: th3j3st3r.
Seriously, he’s been DOS attacking websites with, in his own words, “superior tools” (XeReS) than what Lulzsec had (LOIC) and bragging about it on twitter for a lot longer than these losers.
Why is he still out there? Better OpSec? Maybe? It’s likely because of his choice in targets, foreign jihadi websites, Wikileaks and other people less likely to fight back; unlike Lulzsec who poked PayPal and the major credit card companies in the eye. Probably a bit of government sanction.
Oh and for extra irony, he was partially responsible for doxing the Lulzsec people, AND has attacked Westboro Baptist Church’s website, bringing it down for a week.
Here’s a bit from the SANS institute on him:
http://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/attacking/jester-dynamic-lesson-asymmetric-unmanaged-cyber-warfare-33889?show=jester-dynamic-lesson-asymmetric-unmanaged-cyber-warfare-33889&cat=attacking
He maintains a blog or two as well as a fairly active twitter account.
Re: TANGO DOWN.
Sounds to me like s/he’s an asset of the NSA and/or CIA.
The GCHQ or the NSA only attacks those who attack the rich. If you run stormfront you go untouched.
Don't feed the animals...
Just a note, in case anyone is interested.
Web Trolls, Shills and other forum stuffer types are best harmed by ostracism, and are best served by attention.
If you wish such critters to go away, the easiest method is to simply pretend they do not exist, because they literally thrive on attention.
This is the same for the raving lunatic and the paid shill.
If the paid shill cannot redirect the forum towards one of the listed safe topics, away from the controversy his employer wants ignored, then he soon loses his job.
It is sort of a “Don’t Feed The Animals” policy.
The bonus is a forum with far fewer turds on the path. 🙂