Anonymous Now Attacking Corporate Fax Machines 410
An anonymous reader writes "Anonymous has claimed responsibility for distributed denial of service attacks against several anti-WikiLeaks websites this month. In a novel twist to the campaign, Mission Leakflood has started a new DDoS attack against fax numbers belonging to Amazon, MasterCard, Moneybookers, PayPal, Visa and Tableau Software. Some numbers have already stopped responding, and Twitter and PostFinance have since been added to the target list."
Dont worry - Sen. Joe Liebermann will pay (Score:4, Informative)
in case some of you havent kept up, here is how we know it was sen. joe liebermann :
day 1 : amazon cuts wikileaks from their cloud. it is rumored that liebermann pressurized them personally, but amazon does not comment. cites tos violation on balooney terms.
day 2 : everydns cuts wikileaks.org domain. they are not as secretive as amazon. they directly and openly state that joe liebermann called them, and threatened them. towards the evening, they mysteriously retract their statement.
a few days later : paypal cuts wikileaks donations and holds their funds. they cite tos violation, inquiry, and so on.
in the meantime : visa, mc do the same.
a week later : anonymous constantly attacks paypal since a week, keeping api.paypal.down and causing them millions in business. paypal comes around, and admits that they have suspended wikileaks due to political pressure.
a few days more with anonymous : paypal releases wikileaks funds that were being held.
today : anonymous starts attacking corporate fax machines.
count the times how many times word 'liebermann' passes in the above chronology.
after pressurizing the PRIVATE companies to cut down a perfectly legitimate customer, while in the meantime totally violating first amendment, modern principle of freedom of speech even outside us constitution, intervening and pressurizing private companies, going against journalistic freedoms, it is only natural that he would come up and pay for the business he cost all those companies. of course, not even counting the clients that started to bail out of american providers. not only payment like paypal etc, but a lot of small to medium size businesses are bailing out of u.s. based web hosting companies, datacenters, and content delivery providers.
surely, joe liebermann has the funds to make up for that business lost. else, he wouldnt be going around violating civil liberties, constitutions, and intervening in business for censorship
right ?
A lot of people don't seem to understand... (Score:4, Informative)
... how important fax numbers are to companies like Paypal and Mastercard and Amazon.
Like it or not, a faxed document with a signature is still much more legally recognized as valid than a scanned email, even if said email has been digitally signed. As such, companies like Mastercard/Paypal/Amazon *ROUTINELY* rely on fax to send and receive legal documents, both among other businesses and their own customers.
Cutting off faxes would be a BIG BIG deal to a financial company like Paypal/Mastercard, and likely Amazon as well.
Why attack Twitter? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I, for one, (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Okay that's some funny shit (Score:4, Informative)
since most of the major corporations have moved from hardcopy faxes to digital ones, easier to handle, less waste.
i would assume since Amazon...paypal are large enough and have enough corporate structure (rules) that they would have moved to digital faxes, expecially to fulfil their archive responsibilities
I AM SPARTACUS - google civil disobediance (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a case of being clueless noobs.
It's a classic example of Civil Disobedience ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience [wikipedia.org] ) not unlike refusing to sit in the back of a bus - and when many people do it in large numbers, it changes policies.
This is a million geeks saying I AM ANONYMOUS just like the guys saying I AM SPARTACUS in that old movie.
Re:Junk faxes are against the law (Score:5, Informative)
So, Junk Fax Advertising is indeed against the law, but it is NOT against the law to send a fax to someone without prior dealings, or without their permission or without an "Opt out" clause.
Bollocks. It may not be against THAT law... but sending faxes with as benign an intent as annoying someone can be criminal. In NYS, for instance, you'd be violating the penal code.
Aggravated harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:
1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise, with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; ....
Aggravated harassment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
There may be a federal equivalent elsewhere in the law. Good rule of thumb: If it interferes with someone else, don't assume you're not violating any laws until you talk to a lawyer.
(And don't get hang up on that "how could they figure out my intent!" argument. Near every criminal locked up in the state had a jury of their peers infer their intent. [the exceptions being those who pled guilty])
Re:Ah, Wardialing (Score:4, Informative)
You seem to think that the US doesn't have treaties with many (most, when you consider the source of most of the /b/tards out there) foreign countries to allow for prosecution of spam faxes.
Not only is sending junk faxes illegal in the states, it's illegal in most of the EU, Japan, Hong Kong, China, Canada, and most of South America. The least penalty in any of those countries is the disconnection of your telephone service, and in some it can result in significant fines or jail time.
Doing a DDoS on a website is much more difficult to prosecute, because it's way too easy to spoof your number. While you can spoof your number on call display, the telephone company can still quite easily trace the source of a harrassing call for prosecution.
Obligatory disclaimer: I work for Ma Bell, and have performed such traces in the past.