Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Security Government United States Politics

Hackers Take Aim at Republicans 1866

An anonymous reader writes "Wired reports-- Online protests targeting GOP websites could turn out to be more than symbolic during this month's Republican National Convention, possibly blocking a critical communications tool for the party... "We want to bombard (the Republican sites) with so much traffic that nobody can get in," said CrimethInc, a member of the so-called Black Hat Hackers Bloc. It's one of several groups planning to distribute software tools to reload Republican sites over and over again."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hackers Take Aim at Republicans

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:45AM (#10000502)
    Republicans = RICH
  • Pardon? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hanna's Goblin Toys ( 635700 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:45AM (#10000503) Homepage Journal
    Apologies, but in my opinion massive page reloading to deny service is hardly "hacking". It's not even "cracking". What about reloading a page is innovative, clever, or technical?

  • So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JPelorat ( 5320 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:46AM (#10000515)
    "tolerance" and "open-mindedness"
    • Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by raider_red ( 156642 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @10:02AM (#10000762) Journal
      Just remember, the definition of free speech according to some people means "free to say what I agree with."
    • Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nate1138 ( 325593 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @10:12AM (#10000918)
      Is it really that unfair for them to do this? When the government (both parties, mind you) silences protestors by sticking them in "Free Speech Zones" that are so isolated from the event as to be irrelevant, what other alternatives are there? I think, in this case, this is fair play.
  • by angrist ( 787928 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:46AM (#10000516)
    Posting links to the GOP websites on /.
  • by ichthus ( 72442 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:48AM (#10000534) Homepage
    One group's voices are being silenced because another group disagrees with them. Now that's respect for freedom of speech!
  • Not unexpected (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <> on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:48AM (#10000537) Homepage Journal
    That's so typical of extremist left-wing groups who insist that everyone is entitled to free speech - as long as it meets their approval.

    I'd better hear the same hue and cry in here as if a group of right-wing extremists were gleefully planning to shut down the DNC, or Nader, or any other such group.

    That's just plain wrong. If you don't like someone, then debate them - don't try to shut them up.

    • Re:Not unexpected (Score:5, Informative)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:58AM (#10000705) Journal
      I'd better hear the same hue and cry in here as if a group of right-wing extremists were gleefully planning to shut down the DNC, or Nader, or any other such group.

      You remember all the fuss last month when the Oregon Democrats flooded a Nader meeting in a limited-capacity hall with the explicit purpose of denying him ballot petition signatures, right? No? The New York Times managed to overlook it as well, although just a couple of days ago they managed to squeeze in one more story about imaginary roadblocks in Florida in 2000.

      • Re:Not unexpected (Score:5, Insightful)

        by east coast ( 590680 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @10:10AM (#10000902)
        You remember all the fuss last month when the Oregon Democrats flooded a Nader meeting in a limited-capacity hall with the explicit purpose of denying him ballot petition signatures, right? No? The New York Times managed to overlook it as well

        Imagine that. Both large political parties in the US try any means to squelch third parties. Both of them have a bone to pick after Nader in 2000 and Ross Perot in 92 and 96.

        ...and they tel lyou a third party vote is wasted? It's actually a pretty big threat. Nothing drains their resources as bad as a vote lost. And if neither of them takes in the vote it only shows that people are becoming disconent with both sides and their status quo BS.
  • This is wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BigChigger ( 551094 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:48AM (#10000548)
    No ifs, ands or buts. Denying others their free speech rights via DDOS - these guys are making all of us and our anti DRM, "info wants to be free", OSS support look like fools. I hope the FBI throws every one of them in jail.

  • ... Wrong way... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BlueCup ( 753410 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:49AM (#10000552) Homepage Journal
    ... Personally, while I'm going to probably be voting the same way as these hackers come election day, I don't think this is at all the right way to go about things. If you disagree with someone or some groups actions/beliefs etc, the correct way to beat them is through logic, presenting better arguments, getting a higher listing on google... what these people are doing is much closer to censorship. "We disagree with these people so we aren't going to let them speak" It's also a mistake to believe that every person that's going there is going to be convinced. I know that I have in the past gone to a political candidates website and after reading their beliefs found that I don't match up as closely to them as I previously thought... To me this is just a bunch of script kiddies trying to get attention, and going at something with as little thought as they're used to giving to their actions.
    • by Ieshan ( 409693 ) <> on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @10:05AM (#10000818) Homepage Journal
      The worst part about something like this is that the neo-left needs to be a group that places evidence and facts before ideology.

      Listening to Bush speak and extracting information - he supports pre-emptive war, he doesn't support scientific research on most stemcells, his education and domestic policy are faltering - this type of information is what should drive the left to vote for another candidate. The "he's wrong before I've even heard his views" stance is the *worst* way to go about creating a democracy, in fact, it's the best way to silence one.

      Democracy is dependant on everyone getting the facts. Interpretations of the facts are tricky, but creating your own set of facts is downright wrong. Silencing speech, in any way, is the first step towards the ideological mess that the "faith-based" Republican party finds themselves in right now: creating facts to fit beliefs about misguided assumptions.

      "If you disagree with someone or some group's actions/beliefs"... first requires that you listen to that group's actions or beliefs. I hope - *hope* - that we can get this message across.
      • by (trb001) ( 224998 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @10:22AM (#10001074) Homepage
        I absolutely agree with you. Not on your interpretation of Bush's views, but on your belief that you should be informed before voting. One of my pet peeves is best represented by my best friend's wife...her entire reason for voting for Kerry is because he wants to raise teacher's salaries. "He's for education, and as a teacher, I respect that.". Okay, dandy, but a) teacher's salaries are state dependant..federal funding supports education, but does nothing to directly affect their salaries, b) Bush has thrown more into education than any other president *ever*, including accounting for inflation, c) the 'underfunding' that keeps getting reported is a little known difference between 'approved funding' and 'appropriated funding'...every government program gets hit this way.

        My point is, the American people are ill-informed and it's going to come back and bite them in the ass. What people should really be looking at is the issues swept under the carpet. I don't care if John Kerry was a war hero or not, but I'll be damned if he's going to spend my tax dollars on a healthcare plan when almost 50% of the national budget is going to be going (within the next decade) to Social Security and Medicare. No candidate can hope to get elected on the "I'm going to raise your taxes because we have to pay for shit" platform, but that's exactly what's going to have to happen in the next few presidential terms. Either that or stop spending so much fucking money. The American public doesn't like hearing that either, unfortunately.

  • Please remember (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dmayle ( 200765 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:51AM (#10000580) Homepage Journal

    Please remember, being anti-Bush does not make one a Democrat, and let's not let the actions of a few unsavory individuals tarnish the reputation of everyone who wants Bush out of office.

    This is just like when the media focused on the SCO/spam worms and claimed that linux evangelists were out to destroy the company.

    • by nlinecomputers ( 602059 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @10:50AM (#10001465)
      I don't support Bush even if I tend to agree with Republicans. But even I can see a con job and a grab for oil for what it is.

      However that doesn't make a DDOS attack right. If Bush's message is so bad then why shouldn't it be heard. All this does is drive up sympathy and plays in to the terrorist fear mindset that is the cornerstone of the Bush agenda.
  • Excellent idea! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:52AM (#10000607)
    "They think we're just a bunch of anarchistic, anti free speech, long hair freaks, who have nothing good to say. They think that we can't win on the merits of our own platform. They think that all we're interested in is making a scene, rather than coming up with constructive, workable ideas.

    Let's prove it to 'em!"
  • CrimethInc (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:53AM (#10000626) Homepage Journal
    If memory serves, this was the asshat who got escorted out of a panel he was giving at Defcon once his talk started to descend into advocating violent action against the RNC.
    • by Android23 ( 212551 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @10:58AM (#10001589) Homepage
      This would be the same guy. We watched his speech on the closed circuit, and quickly developed a drinking game based on whenever he said "we'll show those fuckers".

      My favorite line before he got booted off the stage by Priest: "They can call me a terrorist, but I'll still blow up their buildings!" What an asshat.
  • by grunt107 ( 739510 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:54AM (#10000630)
    Once again the 'noble' hacker is committing crime - my hero!!!

    Intentions aside, people like these need to be removed from society, for they are no better than the ill they wish to remove.

    If you want to change a wrong, campaign (marketing) for the change, and VOTE!! Don't commit crimes and then say it was all in the name of justice.

    This is like the 'peace' protestors that assault the police or destroy other's property, or the abortion activist murdering a doctor or pro-choicer.

    It's time to start skimming the gene pool...
  • by Featureless ( 599963 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @09:55AM (#10000652) Journal
    I've seen the increasing drumbeat of anti-GOP protestors everywhere, clearly building towards a childish orgy of vandalism and street violence. It is monumentally naive.

    The GOP occupation of NYC is not just designed to exploit 9/11. It is a careful and deliberate attempt to provoke protest. Preferably large, frightening, unruly protest. The more masturbatory rage they can stir up in the city, the louder they'll be laughing on their way back to the white house.

    This election will be won with moderates and swing voters. Those are people like your parents. They will not identify with "CrimethInc" and "scruffy, unattractive" street protestors. They will see this event covered from inside the convention looking out.

    Every act of violence, provocation, and unruly or disorderly behavior will scare those moderates right into the GOP's arms. Whether it be showing up on 6th Ave. with a mask and a shield, or DDOS'ing a GOP website, this kind of bad conduct is exactly what Republican strategists urgently want. And it will hand them the election on a silver platter.

    Don't be a goddamn lemming. Save your "violence" for the voting booth!
  • by kalidasa ( 577403 ) * on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @10:07AM (#10000852) Journal
    How do you defeat the modern Republican party? Not by shouting them down; if you shout them down, their ideals and agenda remain obscured. Let them talk themselves out of office. Let Cheney make stupid remarks about "sensitivity" so we can juxtapose them with the President's sensible remarks on the same subject. Let the President speak, so everyone can hear that he can't even figure out basic subject/verb agreement in a sentence. Let Ashcroft speak, so folks can see just how scarily totalitarian some of his ideas are. Let Rumsfeld speak, so everyone can hear just how egomaniacal and lacking in honest awareness of his own failings he really is. The best enemy of the US Republican Party is its own leadership ... let them speak.
  • by InnovativeCX ( 538638 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @10:08AM (#10000860)

    I suppose this is a concept that is hardly difficult for a thinking person to unearth, but as no one above my threshold has yet commented upon it, I'll take the soapbox.

    This sort of hacktivism is nothing more then the digital analogue of a violent protest. While I most certainly do not agree with the platform and politics of the GOP, I believe that it is these hackers that pose a greater danger to my 'free speech.' While the Republicans have paid to host a web site and run a server in order to communicate their vision to the world, this wonderful group of people has decided not to fight back with cogent argumentation and stunning logic, but rather with a wildly underwhelming attempt to flood the server.

    This sort of free campaign fodder offered to the Republicans can only harm Kerry's cause (though he is no prize pig himself...). Just wait for the War on Terrorism to go electronic: I can't wait for a digital reprisal of Ari Fleisher's 2001 declaration [] that "People have to watch what they say and watch what they do."

    It's time people began to think. I honestly believe that a logical policy analysis reveals the truth. Left to themselves, people reading campaign literature from either side should be able to discern the better candidate. Even card-carrying GOP members that plan to vote a straight ticket deserve to learn what their party stands for and believes.

    Now flip the coin. Suppose it were Republicans DDOS'ing progressive web sites such as, Kuro5hin, or (heaven forbid) Slashdot. Shouldn't we all have the right to publish in peace? Attack my logic and my political views if you'd like. I'm not here to argue today, but it seems to me that this is obviously a "bad idea."

    Yesterday, a wonderful article [] was published in Salon regarding planned protests of the GOP convention. Article summary: "If militants violently disrupt the GOP convention, it could be Chicago 1968 redux -- and Christmas in August for the Bush campaign." There is nothing like a free victory in a battle not fought.

    We recognize the right to free speech, but I personally believe in the right of anyone to be heard. By my personal moral code, the correct way to respond to a man shouting wildly on the street is not to toss a brick his way, but rather to engage in conversation.

    So please, think. It might work.

  • by 200_success ( 623160 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @10:26AM (#10001143)

    To all of you DOSers out there -- in case it's not already obvious... Denial of Service attacks earn you no respect, it demonstrates no skills. It's like child molestation: it's so easy, anyone could do it. But why would you want to?

  • by FullCircle ( 643323 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @10:56AM (#10001567)
    The republicans own the media.
    They won't let peaceful protesters within blocks of the President or in view of a camera taping the President.
    The debate process blocks anyone with a differing view.

    This is just about the only way people have left to voice their views. They aren't hurting anyone and they may very well make themselves look stupid. It is simply peaceful, but unlawful, protest.

    To quote Cris Rock, "I'm not saying that its right, but I understand."
  • by ReadParse ( 38517 ) <`john' `at' `'> on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @12:10PM (#10002569) Homepage
    I'm surprised that more people from the left aren't absolutely ashamed of what's going on over there. All the talk of anarchy, black powder on your clothes to confuse the dogs, volunteering for the convention and then not showing up, trying to DoS their website, etc.

    God forbid any of these people would go out and campaign for their candidate on the issues. Go door to door asking people to vote for him and telling them why they should. Contribute money to your candidate's campaign. Go to the local campaign headquarters and ask what you can do to help your candidate -- something you can tell your grandchildren about with pride.

    The problem with the left is that they're so desperate to defeat Bush that they'll do absolutely anything sort of breaking the law. And I'm sure some won't stop there. Remember, it doesn't have to be a felony or a misdemeanor for something to be wrong or unscrupulous. DoS'ing the GOP's website is going to do absolutely nothing to help your candidate. And neither is causing chaos at the convention.

    I, for one, am completely in favor of very strict criminal penalties for anybody who intentionally distrupts the security personnel or infrastructure at the convention or at any high profile event. Send these morons to the city jail for some serious amount of time -- like 90 days. If there's no room for them in the jail, build a tent city outside of town and keep them there.

    Protesting is one thing, and you have every right to do that, despite what you and your friends might say about the GOP wanting to silence you. Nobody's going to stop you from protesting, as long as you obey the law. And yes, they might have rules about where you can be. That's not an infringement of free expression. It's a way of attempt to control a potential mob and keep them from intentionally disrupting a location that really does require a lot of security.

    Bottom line -- grow up and let the democratic process work. If you really want to help this election, you can get to work educating voters how to vote properly, so we don't have the fiasco we had last time in Florida. Thanks to that lunacy, we unfortunately had to take the whole thing to the courts, which obviously isn't the way a lot of people like to see an election decided.

  • by gunnnnslinger ( 793553 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @12:42PM (#10002941)
    It seems pretty obvious to me that the 'hactivists' are exactly what they profess the desire to overthrow. They are deciding that its bes tfor people not to see these websites, and therefore not decide for themselves. Some freedom fighters... If they really belived in the opposing force here, in this case the Democrats, they would be confident that their (the Dems) message, weighed against the Repub's message, would be enough for people to make a valid and respectable choice. But to say, "ets silence one of their outlets of expression, so only one side can be heard' is exactly the kind of oppression that these morons think they are fighting. What a bunch of fools.
  • Same guy from DefCon (Score:5, Informative)

    by g0bshiTe ( 596213 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @01:25PM (#10003499)
    If I'm not mistaken /. ran a previous story about him getting tossed from DefCon. 8/03/1617215&tid=156&tid=172&tid=95&tid=21 8 []
    The report from newsforge is under Hacktivism. 426209 []
    I swear this sounds like a guy whose site I used to work on. I saw someone had posted a code snippet from their supposed DoS tool. The code looks like their caliber, shoddy. They are nothing more than an army of spotty faced kids who grew up in suburban areas, and are pissed because mommy and daddy didn't buy them a pony for their 5th birthday.

    If I do find it is the same guy, I will post the URL to the Slashdot community, and you guys can sound off on their forums about what you think of their politics.
  • by wyseguy ( 513173 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @03:23PM (#10004944) Homepage

    After reading the posts on this particular topic, I'm amazed at how quickly the /. community retreats to the rhetorical (albeit slightly better researched and intelligent) arguments on both sides of the Bush vs. Kerry argument.

    I'm not going to advocate either candidate here as I don't really think it really matters. Both men have questionable service records during the Vietnam war. I know that service speakes to the character of each man, but just how relevant is a three decades old cold-war conflict to the modern world with regard to the completely different "war on terror"?

    The grim reality we need to face is that Bush and Kerry are actually two sides to the same damn coin. Is your real tax burden really going to go down under either administration? Is the government going to be less intrusive under either administration? John Kerry hasn't met a tax increase or bigger governmental progam he didn't like. George W. Bush signed on one of the largest entitlements in over 30 years. While Bush did manage to get tax cuts handed out, how many of us felt a real impact? How many of us really believe that the cause of liberty (which I differentiate from freedom to include a measure of responsibility) will be championed by either man?

    Bottom line is with either man, your taxes will go up (if you live here anyway), the government will increase its size, scope, and intrusiveness, and neither man will work toward true liberty for the citizens of the US.

    Sure, John Kerry will not appoint someone as scary as Ashcroft as Attorney General, but he will appoint an equally scary Janet Reno clone. Political Correctness will be the blinders Mr. Kerry will strap on each of us to blind us from the harsh realities he doesn't believe we're capable of handeling.

    On the other hand, George W. Bush won't hasten the demise of free speech via PC activism, but will use national security to the same end the blinders Mr. Kerry would see implemented. Neither man believes we the people are capable of managing our own lives and protection.

    Sure GWB lowered taxes and I've heard the various arguments for and against them (left: only the rich get tax cuts, right: the rich pay the bulk of the taxes so who else should get the cuts) ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Kerry has said he'd repeal the Bush tax cuts, he's raised taxes every times he's been asked, so I believe he'll do it again. Bush tells us that the he wants the tax cuts to be permanent, but increases entitlement spending. Neither candidate is interested in really reducing the tax burden on most families. That would mean cutting too deeply into pet projects of our various congresscritters.

    Why is there even a debate here about taxes? What governmental agency has gotten anything right in the past 30 years? We dump more and more money into social problems only to find them getting worse. Why not try a different approach? Oh yeah, beacuase both parties have a vested interest in getting people addicted to the heroine that is government assistance. Neither party wants to see Americans independant, able to successfully function on their own, and provide for their families needs. Republicans want us to need them for personal protection and to be good little consumers, and Democrats want us to need them for everything else.

    Under either candidate's adminstrations we'll still have to deal with Ridges Retards poking around our personal possessions at airports. Under either candidate, the war on terror will take a surprisingly similar look and feel as the war on drugs. Color coded alert levels are now a permanent fixture of life here in the USA. Neither candidate will lift a finger to attempt to discredit the animating ideas that inflames those who would do us harm. While Kerry would capitulate to world opinion before acting and allow terrorists the exclusive right to the use of force, Bush's approach tends to feed fuel to the fire.

    A vote for Kerry means higher taxes, a PC system designed to inhibit thoughtful int

If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.